Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — AWE Aldermaston

Mr. David Rendel: How many job losses there have been at AWE Aldermaston since the new management consortium took over responsibility. [132985]

The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of the House, for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I know that he set off to get here, but he has not yet arrived.
As at 16 October, a total of 197 jobs had been lost at the Atomic Weapons Establishment since 1 April under the voluntary redundancy scheme introduced by the new management contractor and approval has been given to a further 34 applications.

Mr. Rendel: I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the recent report by the Environment Agency, which raised the concern that the company could not maintain proper environmental and safety standards. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, should the redundancy programme go ahead, that he has taken measures to ensure that redundancies will not cause environmental or safety concerns?

Mr. Hoon: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comment. During the past three months, positive reports were published by Her Majesty's inspector of nuclear installations and the Environment Agency for England and Wales. The Environment Agency said:
Arrangements for the management control of radioactive wastes at AWE and also the training of employees are good.
It also said that the initial impact of the new management systems, especially the environmental management systems, were
promising, and could potentially fully meet overall requirements in the near future.
The Environment Agency gave a positive report on the first three months of operation of the new management contractor.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that throughout the country there are fears—

BSE and the rail crisis, for example—about the possibility that information has been hidden and that staffing requirements may be cut? Will he give an assurance that no hidden secrets about Aldermaston will suddenly emerge, and that safety is absolutely paramount?

Mr. Hoon: With regard to that operation, safety is absolutely paramount. I assure my hon. Friend that the contractor's obligations include the need to satisfy the Ministry of Defence and independent regulators about safety considerations arid that that will remain the case. I give him the assurance that he seeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — KFOR

Mr. Julian Brazier: What plans he has to meet the Russian Defence Minister to discuss KFOR. [132986]

The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have invited the Russian Defence Minister to visit the United Kingdom in early December. I would expect discussions to address a range of issues, certainly including events in the Balkans.

Mr. Brazier: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the role of the Russians in securing the ceasing of hostilities in Kosovo? There is now a democratically elected Government in Yugoslavia, who are calling on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to accept their terms, which were that Kosovo should remain part of Serbia and that some of their troops should be allowed to return to the region. In that delicate, difficult and dangerous situation, the role and the good will of the Russians will be crucial in the attempt to find a peaceful way forward.

Mr. Hoon: I agree—unusually, if I may say so—with the hon. Gentleman, who rightly praised the Russians for their contribution and emphasised the role that they can play in determining the necessary constitutional arrangements in Serbia.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend share with the House information on some of the events that followed the sinking of the submarine Kursk? Many of us followed those tragic events during the summer with increasing horror. What part has the Royal Navy played, and what part will it play in the effort to recover bodies from the submarine?

Mr. Hoon: I make it clear that we are not playing a part in the recovery of bodies. As soon as we became aware of the problem, we offered to help. Early preparations were undertaken in advance of a specific request from the Russian authorities for assistance so that we should be able to respond as quickly as possible. Having made those contingency arrangements, we were able to move as quickly as possible to the scene of the tragedy.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Kosovo is only one place in which our defence forces are committed.


Does the Secretary of State agree that they are being asked to do ever more but that they are being given fewer facilities and people with which to operate?

Mr. Hoon: I recognise that the world is an increasingly dangerous place and that recently British forces have played a significant part around the world addressing those dangers. This time last year, at about the time that I assumed my present ministerial position, overstretch was a problem in the British armed forces. We immediately examined ways in which to reduce that and to significantly reduce the numbers on operation in the Balkans. That significantly reduced the level of activity. However, the hon. Gentleman is right—we continue to look carefully at the engagements in which we should become involved and ensure that overstretch is at the top of the list of considerations that we take into account.

Deployment

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the deployment of United Kingdom armed forces since 28 July. [132990]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Since 28 July, the United Kingdom armed forces have continued their operational deployments in support of international efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Gulf. On 10 October, the UK also announced an enhancement to our deployment in support of the Government of Sierra Leone.
As well as a number of short-term deployments worldwide on exercises and other routine military activity, the UK continues to contribute military personnel to United Nations operations in Cyprus, Georgia, Sierra Leone, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and on the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Mr. Mackinlay: Many of those examples would have justified a statement in the House, but for the inordinately long recess.
Will the Minister now make a definitive statement? We have a right to know, and a duty to ask, what were the circumstances relating to the taking of soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment as hostages in Sierra Leone. It resulted in a skilful, professional and brave rescue attempt, which, tragically, involved the loss of British soldiers' lives.
We note that Major Alan Marshall is not to be court-martialled. That may be correct, if he is innocent; if, on the other hand, he is guilty of mistakes, perhaps he should be court-martialled. It is certainly wrong for him to be produced if he was, in fact, following orders.
I think it is time that the House of Commons was told, with clarity and precision, exactly what happened, and what Major Marshall's orders were.

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will probably have observed that Major Marshall had to have a meeting with the Commander-in-Chief, Land, General Jackson—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: That would not have been a pleasant occasion.

Mr. Spellar: As usual, the right hon. and learned Gentleman treats the matter lightly. I do not think that Major Marshall treated it lightly.
There was no breach of military law, and therefore no requirement for a court martial. There was an error of judgment; on the other hand, following the capture Major Marshall behaved superbly, with great care and concern not only for his own men but for the other, Sierra Leonean hostages. I think that the balance was right, and that this is appropriately a judgment for the Army military authorities.

Mr. John Wilkinson: How many British troops have been deployed on courses training them to drive fuel tankers since 28 July? Is this the best use of military personnel? Is it not the kind of sabre-rattling that is likely to inflame industrial relations, rather than calming them down?

Mr. Spellar: I am interested to learn that a Conservative Member believes that a Government should not make appropriate contingency arrangements to secure and safeguard vital supplies to maintain the country.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Has my hon. Friend heard the statements from those on the Opposition Front Bench hinting that we should not be in Sierra Leone, but should leave the people there to their fate, and hinting that we should not have gone into Kosovo to get rid of Milosevic? Is it not a fact that, in regard to overseas deployment, the Conservative party is now the most isolationist party in Europe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the business of the Minister to worry about the Conservative party.

Mr. MacShane: Would the Minister agree—in condemning, in passing, the isolationism of the Conservative party—with the American Defence Secretary's statement fully supporting, ungrudgingly and wholeheartedly, the European defence initiative led by this country and opposed by the isolationists on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Spellar: Obviously, I find myself in some degree of agreement with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the current Conservative party's tendency—perhaps acquired from some of the ultra wings of opinion in the United States—towards isolationism rather than constructive engagement with the world. I am afraid that that tendency is symptomatic of a deeper development in the Conservative party, which will ensure that it stays on the Opposition Benches for a very long time.

Mr. Robert Key: Can we get back to the facts? Will the Minister confirm whether 1,000 troops have been deployed for training to drive oil tankers and whether the Government have ordered the stockpiling of fuel in military depots? Are those men volunteers and on what legal basis has the action been carried out: is it under the Emergency Powers Acts, or under military aid to the civil community; and, if the latter, who made the request?

Mr. Spellar: I should have thought—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is much easier to answer when Opposition Members are not shouting. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is absolutely prudent and right to make contingency plans for circumstances in which the civil authorities request the military forces to


train a number of personnel to undertake such tasks which are necessary to maintain the supply of essential services to the nation. We have prudently and contingently been training troops and, according to current progress, I estimate that, after the 60-day period, the number trained will approach 1,000. They will be trained to undertake necessary tasks in the event of a breakdown of order resulting in the ordinary civilian groups that would normally undertake those tasks being unable to do so, and the civil authorities requesting that we do so.

Chinook Crash

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will hold a new inquiry into the circumstances leading to the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. [132991]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government have always made it clear that if new evidence were to come to light, it would be examined with scrupulous care, thoroughness and compassion. To date, we have seen nothing that causes us to doubt the integrity of the verdict of the RAF board of inquiry, or that would prompt us to hold a new inquiry.

Mr. Swayne: Given the volume of new evidence that has emerged, especially in connection with the software involved, and the number of eminent persons who have expressed disquiet about the verdict, is it not now time to reopen the matter? After all, would it not clear the air? What is the Ministry of Defence attempting to hide?

Mr. Hoon: The MOD is not attempting to hide anything. I have examined every single submission made to the Ministry on the subject. There is certainly a mass of material, but none of it discloses any new evidence as such. I accept that many people who have looked at the evidence have said that they would have reached a different conclusion from the one reached by the board of inquiry, but that is not a sufficient reason to overturn a board of inquiry and order a new one. Only if there was real, relevant new evidence would that be the appropriate course of action.

Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the extreme disquiet felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place about whether we can really have a verdict based on blaming the dead? Will he come with an open mind to next month's meeting with the Mull of Kintyre group?

Mr. Hoon: I do have an open mind on the subject. I have set out what I consider to be the proper course to adopt, which is that it is not right to disturb the finding of the original board of inquiry in the absence of any significant new evidence, or because it is possible for different people, perfectly properly and with an entirely open mind, to reach different conclusions. Only if it could be shown that there was new evidence would it be right to reopen the board of inquiry. I certainly have an open mind in respect of new evidence becoming available.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: How does my right hon. Friend square what he has just said—that different people can reasonably come to different

conclusions—with the Ministry of Defence's position that, if the pilots are dead, it is wrong to blame them unless there is absolutely no doubt that they are responsible? If it is open to honourable people to come to different conclusions in the case, it is entirely outwith the bounds of the Ministry's own provisions to have declared the pilots responsible.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry, but that is absolutely not right. The board of inquiry was instructed properly, according to the rules governing such inquiries that prevailed at the time, and the board pursued the matter perfectly properly. My hon. Friend seems to imply that it should be possible to reopen any decision or judgment at which a board of inquiry has arrived simply because, later, others take a different view. That cannot be right and it cannot be the right way in which to deal with such matters.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The Prime Minister finds time to see a very strange group of people, from Bernie Ecclestone to Liam Gallagher. How come he could not find time to receive an all-party delegation from both Houses, including several Privy Councillors, who were seriously concerned that there may have been a breach of natural justice in this case?

Mr. Hoon: That is obviously a matter for the Prime Minister. However, if the hon. Gentleman had phrased his question in a slightly more sensible way, I might have been willing to give him a rather more serious response. Nevertheless, the reality is that the Prime Minister is engaged in this matter, and that he has answered a number of questions on this issue in the course of his responsibilities. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch the Speaker's eye on a future occasion when the Prime Minister is answering questions, he will be able to raise that issue with him.

Iraq

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What discussions he has had with his Armenian counterparts as to developments in Iraq. [132992]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I remain in regular contact with the United States Government on a range of issues, including Iraq. I exchanged views most recently with Mr. Cohen, the Secretary for Defence, in the margins of NATO informal ministerials, in Birmingham, on 10 October.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The question is on Armenian counterparts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That was a printers' error, Mr. Speaker.
My right hon. Friend will know that the Iraqi sanctions are being flouted on a massive scale, particularly in the case of oil, and that that information is well known to the Americans. What action is being taken to enforce the sanctions?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend knows that determined efforts are made by the international community to enforce sanctions. Those efforts are not as effective as we


would like them to be. However, certainly, we continue to see real value in the enforcement of sanctions and we play our part in that process.

Mr. Michael Howard: Given the differences between British policy and French policy on Iraq, how will the Government's objectives be helped by the new European Union military arrangements, particularly if, as reported in yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph, the director general of the military staff is to be French?

Mr. Hoon: The military arrangements that are the headline goal are not anticipated to be used in the context of enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq, which is what British forces with their American counterparts are engaged in. I am, therefore, not sure that the premise of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is at all relevant. Nevertheless, it gives him an opportunity to air once again the anti-European phobia that too many Opposition Members seem to be suffering from.

Sierra Leone

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: How many British troops are deployed in Sierra Leone. [132993]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our announcement on 10 October indicated a small increase in the total number of troops deployed in Sierra Leone. The number will vary depending on the training task under way, but it is likely to be slightly over 400.
We also made it clear that, under our memorandum with the United Nations, we are ready to deploy a rapid reaction force in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. As an early demonstration of the seriousness of that commitment, we are taking advantage of the completion of an exercise in the Mediterranean to divert an amphibious ready group comprising elements of our joint rapid reaction forces off Sierra Leone for a limited period during November. The group will include HMS Fearless, HMS Ocean, three Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and 42 Commando embarked. While in the area the group will be able to practise procedures and to conduct a detailed reconnaissance, both of which will significantly reduce the time needed to deploy should the rapid reaction force be required in future.

Mr. Thomas: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Can he assure the House that, while clearly doing everything possible to support the United Nations peacekeeping force, we are not going to see mission creep or find ourselves in the situation of British forces taking the fight direct to the rebels?

Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The primary purpose of British forces going to Sierra Leone is not only to train the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone, but to demonstrate that the current deployment is there for training purposes. The 400 whom I mentioned earlier are there to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in developing forces of their own that can be used to take on the rebels. The deployment there of the

amphibious ready group is part of a demonstration of our commitment to the United Nations, pursuant to a memorandum that we signed with the UN in 1999.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the training mission, which is essential for the long-term stability of Sierra Leone. It is also right that the United Kingdom should provide additional forces to assist the United Nations effort. Without them the success of the training mission cannot be guaranteed. However, instead of a separate command, would it not make much more sense to place the additional British forces under the United Nations command? The withdrawal of the Indian and the Jordanian troops is generally accepted as weakening the UN effort. How will we persuade other countries to contribute to the UN effort if we are not willing to contribute to it ourselves?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that analysis of the problem. The training that we are conducting is quite separate from the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. We have offered extra headquarters staff to UNAMSIL to give it some assistance in deploying its forces as well as provided substantial assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone. We believe that the best way of assisting that Government is to make sure that they have forces on which they can call to resist the rebel forces in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We clearly have obligations to a Commonwealth ally that is seeking to achieve democracy. We also have obligations to the United Nations which, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, is potentially facing a crisis of confidence with Jordanian and Indian forces leaving as the fighting season begins. Is it the Government's clear view that our reinforcements are in Sierra Leone only for confidence building and to tidy matters up in the short term and that there will be no move—substantial or otherwise—from a training to an active intervention role?

Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. May I make it clear that we announced on 10 October that the training will continue certainly until April of next year? We recognise the importance of providing a substantial body of trained troops to the Government of Sierra Leone. The early training teams have been very successful and have provided soldiers whom the Government of Sierra Leone can use. We also wish to extend the training so that, as well as providing trained individuals, we ensure that the Government of Sierra Leone can call on trained groups. That means more than simply providing individual soldiers with weapons, uniforms and boots, but providing them with the equipment that will be needed if they are—as we hope they will—to take the fight to the rebels.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Earlier Government policy hinged on an effective UN force being in place with the right numbers to be able to keep the peace. However, that force has proved ineffective. As the Secretary of State knows, it will not take the action that is necessary. Now, with the departure of the Indians and the Jordanians, it is beginning to look even more ineffective than it was when British forces


were deployed earlier this year to support it. That leaves us with a vacuum that, as Labour Members have already said, may well suck us deeper into the conflict.
Will the Secretary of State answer a question that will help to give us clarity? What conditions in Sierra Leone must prevail in the mind of the Government for British troops to be withdrawn?

Mr. Hoon: May I deal with the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question? There is no suggestion at the moment that the UN force is not effective. It has preserved peace in Sierra Leone and there is no sign that the rebels have taken any new ground. Indeed, it is clearly central to our policy that that force should be effective.
We have been able to help—as I said, we have provided headquarters staff to guide the UN force—and we believe that that is an effective way forward. However, it is important that the Government of Sierra Leone should have effective forces on which they can call. The early training teams have done a tremendous job in making soldiers available to that Government. We believe that they need more soldiers, but those soldiers should be trained not only as individuals, but as formed fighting forces. That work is likely to start fairly shortly. Ultimately, we want the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone to control their own territory.

Army Operations

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What is the current percentage of the Army (a) committed to, (b) preparing for and (c) recovering from operations. [132995]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Some 22 per cent. of the trained Army is committed to operations. This figure includes units preparing for, deployed on and recovering from operations. Of these, 15 per cent. of the trained Army is currently deployed on operations.
There has been a significant reduction in commitment levels over the past year, particularly since the height of the Kosovo campaign in July 1999, when the commitment level reached a peak of 44 per cent. The current level of commitment is below that inherited from the previous Administration.

Mr. Bradshaw: I am pleased to hear it. However, what would the impact be if the United States were to withdraw its forces from Kosovo and Bosnia, as George Bush junior has threatened to do in the unhappy event that he becomes President?

Mr. Spellar: Certainly, any new Administration—whichever candidate wins in that election—will obviously wish to review their foreign and defence policy and have discussions with their allies in that regard. NATO has been ensuring that there are adequate forces in both Bosnia and Kosovo so that we can maintain a stable situation in those societies, as demonstrated by the very welcome elections in Kosovo over the weekend.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the high strike rate of operations at the present time, which I regard as unavoidable, will the Minister assure the House that, even though the Ministry of Defence cut back on the

training programme last year, there will be no such cutback in the high-intensity battle training for the year coming and the year after that?

Mr. Spellar: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the level of operations and his understanding of the requirement for those. He will also understand that we try, wherever possible, to avoid any cuts in significant training. Last year, on balance, although there were one or two highly publicised events, very little training suffered cutbacks.
Of course, we will be acquiring greater flexibility with the increase announced in the comprehensive spending review—the first planned increase, I remind the House, since the cold war.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In the context of single people, in particular, who are preparing for and recovering from operations, what progress has been made in improving accommodation for them in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Spellar: The answer is, significant but not yet sufficient. The Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for the accommodation programme, and I are working with the Ministry to improve that programme. We take the point that, over a number of years, housing has been used as the balancing item, which has had a significant effect on deteriorating conditions. Public focus has often been on married quarters, but having visited a number of those quarters, we are very aware of the inadequate provision for single living accommodation and we intend to do something about it.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Government have to deal with those who are preparing for operations. Will the Minister accept that 1,000 drivers being trained to help bust any sort of strike may well be included among those, as they are being prepared and are ready to be deployed on an operation? As and when they are deployed on that operation, will those military drivers be under the command of the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Spellar: First, let me be quite clear. I am not aware of a proposal for a strike anywhere in terms of national supplies. I am aware of threats to blockade, disrupt, barricade—in other words, of threats potentially to conduct illegal action. In the event that such action took place—I stress that it would not be a strike-and that the civil authorities and the civilian organisations were unable to undertake action to provide those supplies, there could be a request to the military to provide that equipment and also, therefore, that service.
In answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), there is no requirement for any legal authority to undertake training. The legal authority comes on deployment of forces. Therefore, the forces would be under the command of the armed forces. The request would come from the civil authorities and—to clear up any misapprehension that there may have been in the press—the maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the civil authorities.
I find it quite extraordinary that there is no Conservative comment deploring proposals to disrupt national supplies as a way of changing public policy. Other Members of the House and the public will have noted that.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Now that the Minister has had his rant, perhaps he would answer the question exactly and specifically. Why would the Government, in the form of the Ministry of Defence, be training 1,000 drivers? Who requested that that be done? If those drivers are deployed, will they be under the command of the Home Office and, thus, will there be a state of emergency? Who asked for it?

Mr. Spellar: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how government works. There is collective responsibility, with a lead from the Home Departments. In the event of a breakdown in vital supplies to the nation, the Home Departments could make a request to the military authorities to provide military aid. Therefore, we have to make contingency arrangements so that we could respond to such a request if it were made. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the rules, regulations and laws relating to military aid for civil authorities, but that is probably because Conservative Members have been busy supporting those who were barricading the refineries rather than defending law and order.

Rogue Governments

Mr. Paul Flynn: What recent assessment he has made of the military threat to the United Kingdom from states with rogue Governments. [132996]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our assessment is that there is no significant immediate military threat to the United Kingdom. We continue, however, to monitor the development of military threats very closely.

Mr. Flynn: That is a great relief. If there is no threat to us, what will be our attitude to the phantom threat that is encouraging the United States to introduce a national missile defence system that will entail the upgrading of the radar station at Fylingdales in this country, which we are told is in conflict with the anti-ballistic missile treaty? If George Bush wins the election in America, is not it true that there will be an attempt to introduce that very dangerous national missile system not to secure world peace, but to secure fat contracts for the American arms industry?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has asked that sort of question before, but I should have thought that he would have taken account of the measured approach adopted by President Clinton in stating that he would defer any decision on the deployment of national missile defence. In those circumstances, no request has been made of the United Kingdom and, therefore, much of what he asks me to comment on is mere speculation. However, I can tell him that President Clinton took careful account of the views of the United States allies, including the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Foreign Office is opposed to ballistic missile defence,

what pressure has the Secretary of State received from his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to curtail his Department's involvement in the United Kingdom readiness and risk assessment programme?

Mr. Hoon: Again, Opposition Members need to understand the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, because the Government speak with a single voice on those matters. I have set out the Government's view precisely. We have had discussions with our US allies. We were delighted that, in announcing his decision to defer any decision in the United States, President Clinton said that he had taken account of those views. We are most grateful.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), the Defence Secretary said that President Clinton had taken account of the views put forward by allied Governments, including the United Kingdom. Can he tell us exactly what those views were? Will he place those opinions in the Library so that they can be made public? Will he say that, in the event that either future President Gore or future President Bush requests us to endorse national missile defence, with all its dangers and illegalities, the British Government will simply say no?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend asks me to speculate on a decision that has not even been taken in the United States and which the US President has recently said does not need to be taken. In those circumstances, he is simply making a request for speculation. A number of issues have to be taken into account. I am delighted that the US President was prepared to take into account the views of allies and said as much.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Given that rogue Governments may well use information warfare techniques to pose a military threat to the United Kingdom, and that our information warfare defences will almost certainly include commercially available software, what action does the Secretary of State plan to take following the recent hacking into Microsoft's most secure systems?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Lady is right to point out that there are, in the modern world, ways in which Governments can be attacked other than by conventional military means. We are aware, across Government, of such threats, and we take every step to develop defences against such potential attacks. As the Microsoft incident shows, there are some ingenious and clever people who are prepared to put their talents at the disposal of the unscrupulous, and we must guard against them, too.

Bosnia

Mrs. Betty Williams: How many British troops are deployed in Bosnia. [132997]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Currently, we have about 2,300 troops deployed in Bosnia, serving with SFOR. We are on target for a commitment of about 2,000 troops by the end of the year. About 4,000 troops are deployed in Kosovo, 500 of whom were deployed for the election period. My right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to visit the Balkans region before the end of this year and intends to call on troops serving in KFOR and SFOR.

Mrs. Williams: How long does my hon. Friend believe that British troops will remain in Bosnia?

Mr. Spellar: Quite simply, that will depend on developments in Bosnia. To some extent, that will be influenced by the favourable developments in Serbia and the departure of Milosevic—a departure hastened by the strong action of allied forces last year and our strong commitment against him since then.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is the Minister studying the recent election results in both Serbia and Kosovo? What change have they made to the Government's thinking about the troops being kept there? Will he reassure the House that the commitment is not unlimited? The troops have been in Bosnia for about eight years and it looks as though they could remain for a very long time to come.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman would agree that the overthrow of Milosevic changes the situation. It is a favourable development on which we must build, but it would be premature to contemplate timetables. No one should underestimate the change in the region, which has been matched or even precipitated by the change in Croatia, where again a hard-line regime was defeated by a more progressive one that clearly wants to be part of Europe. We intend to build on those very favourable developments. It might be premature to set a timetable, but the changes begin to offer us some light.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the House's appreciation for the work of our forces in Bosnia is communicated to them? What message does he have for the new Government in Belgrade concerning the restoration of normal relations with Bosnia, to allow a de-escalation of the military presence in the Balkans?

Mr. Spellar: We intend to reopen the embassy there and to appoint a defence attaché. Discussions are taking place with ourselves and other European countries. We should recognise, however, that the first priority of the new regime in Belgrade will be the reconstruction of the country. The new Government will have to focus on that, but we aim to work with them and help them in that process.

Far East Prisoners of War

Mr. David Heath: When he will announce the outcome of his review of the case for ex gratia payments to former far east prisoners of war. [133002]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, the Government's review of the case for awarding additional, ex gratia, compensation

to former UK service personnel who were prisoners of war in the far east is still in progress, but we expect a decision to be announced very shortly.

Mr. Heath: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the strong support throughout the House for a group of people who have experienced privations that are unimaginable to most of us? It is much to be regretted that the Government have been sending mixed signals on the issue over the past few months. Can he assure us now that the question will be resolved, not within months or even weeks, but within days?

Mr. Hoon: I do understand the issue. My father served in India and in Burma during the second world war. I grew up in no doubt of the conditions in which many of our armed forces were held, of the appalling circumstances and, moreover, of the fact that many of those people carried that legacy throughout their lives; some continue to do so. Therefore, I am aware of the circumstances. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the matter will be resolved as quickly as possible.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the Prime Minister replied to my question last Wednesday, there has been greater optimism among the people affected that a settlement will very soon be reached? I hope that it will be reached very shortly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Japanese who should pay compensation, and that their refusal to do so has led to the position where the British Government are likely to do so? Should we not remember that some 25 per cent. of prisoners never returned because of the horrifying conditions that they had to endure, dying as prisoners of the Japanese?

Mr. Hoon: Some compensation was paid under the 1951 peace treaty. I accept that, understandably, those affected regard that compensation as inadequate, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged the other day that this nation, the United Kingdom, owes those people a particular debt of honour. It is that debt of honour that we are reviewing. I hope that the optimism that my hon. Friend mentions is vindicated.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the far east prisoners of war were, as I have pointed out to the House previously, victims of war crimes? Will he give a commitment that any payments to them will be not means-related, but absolute ex gratia payments either to the far east prisoners of war themselves, or to their widows if they have since died?

Mr. Hoon: I am well aware of the implications of any decision that the Government take. All I can do is assure the hon. Gentleman that those factors are taken into account as part of the review that is yet to conclude.

Mr. John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only 7,500 former far east POWs left and that, in the next few years, that figure is likely to



drop substantially? Can we do quickly what the Tories failed to do for 18 years: get an announcement out of the way and get the money to those men before it is too late?

Mr. Hoon: I have indicated my appreciation and understanding of the problem. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we are proceeding with the review as quickly as we possibly can.

European Security and Defence Initiative

Mr. John Wilkinson: What contribution the United Kingdom is making towards meeting the headline goals of the European security and defence initiative. [133004]

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts about the European security and defence initiative; and if he will make a statement. [133005]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I discussed European security and defence issues with my EU counterparts at the EU Defence Ministers informal meeting on 22 September in Paris, and with all NATO allies at the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Birmingham on 10 October.
We discussed progress on elaborating the requirements of the Helsinki headline goal and member states' possible contributions to a pool of capabilities that could be drawn on in the event of a crisis. Contributions from member states, including the UK, will be formally identified at a capability commitment conference to be held on 20–21 November.

Mr. Wilkinson: As the capability conference is imminent, can the Secretary of State not come to the House later this week and say clearly which units will be earmarked from the British armed forces to fulfil the role under the ESDI? Is it not a very large role to deploy an Army corps for up to a year, sustained by 350 combat aircraft and no less than 80 naval vessels? Where are the extra resources coming from? Is there not a risk that it will damage NATO without any corresponding increase in capability, unless the money and resources are forthcoming?

Mr. Hoon: There is—the hon. Gentleman was no doubt alluding to it—a defence debate on Wednesday and Thursday this week. Clearly, it will be possible during that debate to discuss those matters in more detail, but I doubt that we would be in a position by Wednesday or Thursday to indicate to the House precisely what initial contribution we are offering as part of the capability conference. However, I make it clear to him and, indeed, to other hon. Members that what is proposed in relation to the headline goal is not a standing force. It is not a force that will permanently be waiting for some Petersberg crisis to be called into action. They are commitments of capability in exactly the same way as NATO allies contribute to NATO and to the United Nations where appropriate. We are seeking to persuade other European Union member states to have available the

kind of rapid reaction forces that, as a result of the strategic defence review in particular, we can make available for international operations.

Miss McIntosh: May I congratulate the Defence Secretary on answering more questions than usual in his own right? Will he give the House an assurance this afternoon that the Americans will not see the ESDI as a threat to European defence and that our European partners will meet the commitments that we are expecting of them in this regard?

Mr. Hoon: I was assuming that the hon. Lady would disagree with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on this subject. Nevertheless, I can give her a clear assurance, as was given by Bill Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary, most recently at Birmingham that the United States Administration strongly support the development of European capabilities and want to see them improved. Indeed, had the hon. Lady studied the history of the US and NATO, she would know full well that for a long time the US has called for a more effective European contribution to NATO because, in strengthening Europe's contribution to NATO, we will be strengthening NATO itself.

Mr. Syd Rapson: This is my first public opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on assuming the Chair. I am very pleased.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increasingly fanatical Euro-sceptic statements from the Opposition are seriously undermining confidence in, and support for, the A400M and Eurofighter, and that a proper criticism should be made of the equipment's capability and not of the fact that it is built by a European consortium?

Mr. Hoon: I am always lost in admiration for my hon. Friend's ability to draw in subjects that are not obvious from the Order Paper, but I certainly have some sympathy with his views. I wonder, in the unlikely event of the Opposition ever returning to government, which particular partners they would associate with in future. Clearly, they want to leave the European Union. They criticise every aspect of any decision taken in the context of the European Union and they reject the views and advice of the current United States Administration because they do not want the US to be content with a European development, so I wonder where their isolationist tendency is leading.

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the Secretary of State will get away from polemics and revert to the facts. Does he accept that any European defence initiative for a rapid response force must have the lift potential to be got to wherever the problems are as quickly as possible? That lift potential does not exist in Europe at the moment. Is it to be expected that we will rely entirely on the Americans to provide that lift potential, or how quickly does he envisage France, Germany and ourselves will be able to provide it?

Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I would not be tempted to polemics if the right hon. Gentleman, in asking such questions, were more likely to say how much he approved of the Government's position on airlifts. Had he started by asking how it is that, over many years, the Government


whom he supported failed to invest in the airlift that is required to carry out international missions and said how well the present Government had done in making the necessary investment, I might have had a bit more sympathy with him. Nevertheless, I can assure him that by agreeing to lease four C 17s, which will be in service next year with the RAF, and by committing to buy 25 A400Ms—a new European transport aircraft—we will put in the necessary investment for our armed forces to have the heavy lift required to get them rapidly into theatres where they are needed. I think that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although I would be greatly appreciative if he were a little less grudging in his comments.

Cotswold Families Centre

Mr. James Gray: If he will visit the Cotswold families centre in Corsham to discuss its future. [133006]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I should like to take this opportunity to commend the service provided by the services Cotswold centre on behalf of service families. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the future of the centre is under review and we hope to make a decision about its future in the first half of next year.

Mr. Gray: Is there not a curious irony that the outstanding service provided at the centre for the victims of family breakdown—as well as education services for the local battered wives refuge and other services entirely for less-privileged people—which was preserved by the Conservative Government for 18 years, should now be under review by the Labour Government, who claim to be committed to persons of that kind? The Minister has been reviewing the centre for some three and a half years already. Will he at the very least agree to complete the review as soon as he can? Will he come and visit the centre with me—I shall welcome him there any day he cares to come—so that I can show him personally the excellent work that is carried out there?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before, and I understand his concern. However, I receive a considerable number of requests to visit establishments around the country. This is one that we are considering, but I cannot give him a guarantee.
One of the reasons why the review is taking a while is the excellent work undertaken at the centre, which no one wants to underestimate. However, the centre is underused.

Its average monthly occupation rate is between 60 and 65 per cent. Some 93 per cent. of the families staying at the centre are either in transit between family quarters or are on a break. Only 5 per cent. of families staying at the centre are experiencing welfare problems. There is a need to evaluate—as we must do right across defence activities—whether such a service can be provided more cost-effectively elsewhere. Those considerations are being weighed up. Once a conclusion has been arrived at, we shall give it the fullest publicity.

Nuclear Defence Industry (Scotland)

Mr. Bill Tynan: If he will make a statement on the numbers employed in the nuclear defence industry in Scotland. [133012]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The total number of personnel employed directly by the Ministry of Defence in establishments in Scotland that undertake nuclear-related activity is 3,974. In addition, we employ private contractors. Also, the figure does not include service personnel ported at the Clyde naval base.

Mr. Tynan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Scotland, where the policies of the Scottish National party as regards the nuclear industry are causing tremendous concern to the work force? Will he ensure that he publicises the threat to the nuclear defence industry in Scotland? Will he seek to reassure the people working in the industry?

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend and I have met members of the work force, who are enormously professional and have an enormous pride in the skills that they employ, as well as in the contribution that they make to Britain's defences. The House will not be surprised that Scottish National party Members have chosen not to turn up today; there is nothing unusual in that. However, their views on this subject are at direct variance with the views of the great majority of people in this country and are very much at variance with the interests of the work force on the Clyde at Coulport and Faslane, the many other workers who depend on those establishments for their employment and the suppliers to the defence industry. I need no incitement from my hon. Friend to undertake to give the widest possible publicity to the difficulties that Scottish National party policy would cause not only for the people at Faslane and Coulport, but for the people of Scotland and the industry generally. [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is saying with regard to this matter; I am sure that it is instructive.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. During the debate on defence procurement last Thursday, several points of order were raised with the Chair. Two issues in particular arose. The first issue was whether it was acceptable for a Minister to make policy announcements during a debate rather than through a statement to the House. That is a long-established practice, and announcements of the sort that were made last Thursday have been made in this way by previous Governments on a regular basis. I quite understand the anxieties that were expressed on Thursday about the practice, but it may equally be convenient for the House for announcements to be made during a debate. What is certain is that no rule or convention of the House has been broken, though I would expect Ministers to give careful thought to the matter when considering making announcements in this way.
The second issue is potentially more serious. An allegation was made that the substance of the Minister's announcement had appeared in the media before the House was informed. I must make it clear that if Ministers were to release information to the press before the House was informed of major policy developments I would regard that as an unacceptable discourtesy to the House. If that occurred, I would expect the Minister concerned to apologise to the House. With regard to last Thursday's announcement, it appears that some broadly accurate advance information reached the media. The Secretary of State for Defence has assured me that he is confident that the information did not come from his Department. I accept that assurance. Nevertheless, I expect Ministers to take measures to ensure that other authorities, who are privy to confidential information, protect it until the House has been informed. I hope that the Secretary of State will pursue the matter.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wholeheartedly welcome the points that you made, especially the second part of the statement, which dealt with information. In answer to Question 9, the Secretary of State appeared to make a statement about new policy on the deployment of troops to Sierra Leone. I wonder whether it would have been more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to have taken Question 9 at 3.30 pm.

Mr. Speaker: That is up to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During last Thursday's debate, at column 448 of Hansard, I said that, if the Secretary of State had made the information available to the BBC website, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested, he should apologise to the House. Even if not he, but someone from his office, were responsible for providing that information, would it be your ruling that he should apologise to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have made a clear statement to the House. The hon. Gentleman should read it in Hansard.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I welcome the

guidance that you have given the House, could you provide further clarification? You will understand that the difference between a statement and incorporating information in a debate is that, when a specific statement is announced in advance, hon. Members have an opportunity to come to the House and question the Minister appropriately. Under the overall umbrella of a debate, hon. Members may not be aware that such information will be made available.
At column 414 of the record of last Thursday's proceedings, the Secretary of State said:
Let me complete the statement, and I shall certainly give way in due course. —[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 414.]
It would appear that the Secretary of State came to the House, and gave what amounted to a statement in a debate. However, hon. Members had not been apprised of that, and therefore had no opportunity to decide whether they should be present to take part. You will understand that distinction, Mr. Speaker. May I invite you to go further than you have already gone in making the distinction?

Mr. Speaker: I have made a statement, and I believe that the Secretary of State has got the message.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members are not seeking an expansion on my statement.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having taken part in the proceedings last Thursday, and welcoming your ruling today, I accept. of course, that the regulations of the House were not breached. However, although the letter of our regulations may not have been breached, the spirit most certainly was. If there is a statement, right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to prepare and you, Mr. Speaker, in presiding over our proceedings, can ensure that there is sufficient time for questioning and that there is a proper balance of participation by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Secretary of State is incorporating what is, in effect, a statement into his speech in a debate, the intervention of hon. Members is purely at the Secretary of State's discretion. That is not appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will note that my statement referred to the Minister giving careful consideration to these matters.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to the second part of your statement, Mr. Speaker, which you said was the more important one in that it covered the more important issue, does not an unsatisfactory situation arise in the House? It appears that there was a leak on Thursday to the media of material that was clearly conceived and drafted in the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State says that he personally was not responsible, but presumably that means that either one of his officials was or there was a leak from the Ministry of Defence, which in the nature of things would be a matter of considerable concern, to some other organisation, which then itself passed the information on to the media.
If we do not have the apology which you said would be required had the Minister been directly responsible, Mr. Speaker, do we not need at least an inquiry to ascertain how it was that information came from the Minister or from his office into the media? Without such an inquiry, surely the public will never be aware of what exactly occurred on Thursday. As you have said, we face a bad situation.

Mr. Speaker: I said in my statement that I hoped that the Minister would pursue the matter, and I am sure that he will.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the points of order with increasing incredulity. Having been in this place during the 18 years when the Tories were in government, I had the impression about three times a week that policy was being announced when I listened to it on "Today" and it was repeated on "Newsnight". If we were lucky a statement would be made on the following day, or no statement would be made.
There is another area that should be examined. We live in a time when the Liberals are consulted about many things. How do we know that it is not that lot on the Liberal Benches who are doing these things?

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is there to be a point of order every day, Mr. Bercow?

Mr. Bercow: I assure you that it is intended to be a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for your clarification in response to my point of order last Thursday about the conduct of the Secretary of State for Defence. He said on that occasion that no words—this is important, and I refer to column 424—for which he was responsible appeared upon the BBC website. It is only right to point out that the right hon. Gentleman sidled up to me earlier this afternoon to vouchsafe to me his innocence.
Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is not good enough for a Minister to go to the Member who has complained to protest his innocence? It is necessary for him openly to apologise to the House for the leak on behalf of one of his officials, which has obviously taken place.

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day — Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 3

ASSISTING CASES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 INVOLVING COMPLAINT OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

'After section 66(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Assistance by Commission) there is inserted—
(1A) Subsection (1) shall also apply to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 in which the complaint or claim includes or is proposed to include discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) a public authority shall have the same meaning as in section 19B of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) apologises for not being present, Mr. Speaker. All roads from Taunton are cut off.
In the Race Relations Act 1976, a power is granted for the Commission for Racial Equality to provide assistance through advice and support during legal proceedings. It is set out clearly. The provisions relate to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Act. An individual who is a claimant or might be a claimant, or complainant, can apply to the commission for help. The commission then considers the matter—I have had constituency experience of such cases—and if it thinks that there is an issue of principle or if it thinks that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaided because it is difficult or because of the relationship between the applicant and the body complained against, or for other special reasons, it, the commission, can give help. The new clause represents an attempt to extend that power in light of the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force at the beginning of this month.
I want to say again publicly what Ministers have heard me say elsewhere. I and the Liberal Democrats greatly welcome the Human Rights Act, and we welcome its passage into law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland where it was passed last year. I and my colleagues join the Minister and the Secretary of State in welcoming that.
As a result of that Act coming into law, someone may want to bring an action under the Human Rights Act only or under a combination of the Human Rights Act and the Race Relations Act 1976—or the Act as amended if the Bill becomes law, which we very much hope it will. Under the new clause, we propose that the commission's power to give help should be extended
to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998
when there is a claim or prospective claim that includes
discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.


It is not a matter central to the Bill, which deals with discrimination and positive duties in law. It is an ancillary proposal, and would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation.
There are obvious reasons why we want to put this proposal to the House now, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response. I am mindful of the fact that we debated these matters in Committee. That seems a long time ago—it was the other side of a long recess for the Commons—when the Human Rights Act had not yet come into law, so things have now moved on.
The first reason is that, as the Minister will understand—it does not need anyone to persuade him—a person might bring an action that at one and the same time could be an action under the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act. It would be nonsense if two separate actions in law were started: indeed, the courts would be unhappy about that if they were on the same issues. It would be logical to join the complaints together.
Ministers may give the technical answer that advice to people would be covered under the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill or the original 1976 Act, but the stronger case may be on discrimination under the Human Rights Act and the straightforward implementation of the convention through English law. The Commission for Racial Equality or others may say that that is the best way to proceed. A case may proceed on the basis of racial discrimination, but it would be better, and a person would be more likely to succeed, if the applicant took action under the Human Rights Act.
That is the first reason why we believe that the commission's power should be extended. It uses that power carefully and considerately. I have had experience of the commission helping people to take cases to court, and of it turning down people who have asked for help when it has considered that their case was not justified.
Secondly, our case may be stronger now than it was before the summer because the Minister said before the recess that the Government were moving towards the creation of the Human Rights Committee of Parliament. That commitment for a Committee of both Houses was welcomed. There are one or two other such Committees. It would be the new body to consider human rights matters in the light of the implementation of the 1998 Act. I am aware—I do not think that it is confidential information—that some progress has been made in the House of Lords on agreement on the structure of the Committee, but the proposal has not yet come before the Commons. I am also aware that there have been discussions on that matter between Whips Offices and party managers. The proposal has not been lost, but it has not happened. Even if it did, things would take a while to get going—as they always do—so there is a benefit in acting now that the Bill has been introduced, to give the Committee power, even if Ministers did not think that necessary before the summer.
3.45 pm
I wish to put on the record one further important thing so that I do not take up the time of the House when we return to the matter later. My colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler),

who is Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and our shadow Leader of the House, have made representations to Ministers and their colleagues, and their view is generally supported by members of the Conservative Front Bench, although Conservative Members must clarify that themselves. It is an important principle that, once the Committee is set up, its Chairman, like that of the Public Accounts Committee, should, for the time being, be an Opposition Member of the House of Commons. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. It is a long-standing practice that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a senior Opposition Member of Parliament, as it is thought important that it is not a Government Member who looks after public accounts and that scrutiny should come from elsewhere. The PAC is an all-party Committee that is representative of the balance of the House, but the Chair is taken by an Opposition Member who, at the moment, is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).
The same should apply to the Human Rights Committee, which will be a Committee of both Houses. Quite properly, the Government have the power both to introduce legislation and certify whether legislation complies with the Human Rights Act. The Secretary of State certifies on the front of the Bill that it is compliant with that Act. Therefore, the scrutiny of such matters in both the Commons and the Lords should be undertaken by a senior Opposition Member, whether a member of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party or, indeed, any other Opposition party. I also state publicly our belief that, for obvious democratic reasons, that role should be undertaken by a Member of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. Of course, there are eminent people in the House of Lords, and I pay tribute to those who have made the Bill much better during its passage through the House. Ministers have been equally courteous, but it would be invidious to list everyone who has contributed. However, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has pre-eminent national expertise in such matters, has contributed greatly and has worked hard, both publicly and privately, to get the Bill into the best possible shape.
Although negotiations on the Human Rights Committee are being pursued, the Committee is not in existence, so the power to set it up should be introduced now. I suspect that the Minister will respond to our debate in a second, and I hope that he will tell us that the Government will act urgently to introduce a motion to set up the Committee, which was supposed to have been established by 2 October. That meant that it should have been set up before we broke up for the summer, given that we were did not return until after that date. It is now after 2 October, Parliament is back and the Human Rights Act is in force, so there is no excuse. I therefore hope that, before this week ends, a motion to set up the Committee will be laid before the House and that, thereafter, a motion for the membership of the Committee, including its chairmanship, will be tabled.
Lastly, when the Human Rights Committee is up and running and sets up a human rights commission which, it is envisaged, will look after these matters—although that may not necessarily be the case—will the House consider whether that commission should be different from the Commission for Racial Equality? I accept that that new commission will not have the experience of the CRE. People have different views about the CRE's individual acts and expressions, but no one doubts its authoritative



and greatly experienced position in giving advice in such cases. It helps meritorious cases and puts off cases without merit. People with the CRE's experience who can give such advice are to be valued.
I hope that Ministers can be positive about the new clause. I am conscious that the Bill began in the Lords and that its Report stage may be the last occasion on which we may deal with these matters. That is unusual, as most Bills start in the Commons and therefore come back to us. If Ministers do not concede the new clause, the power of the Lords to do anything about it is limited, given that they can amend only what we amend here. I therefore expect more than warm words if I am to be persuaded not to press the new clause to a Division. I hope that the Minister can be helpful.

Mr. David Lidington: I shall speak briefly to new clause 3. As I understand the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his party, it would allow the Commission for Racial Equality to intervene and to advise in cases arising under the Human Rights Act 1998, where the complaint involved some discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.
The illustration that the hon. Gentleman gave the House to demonstrate the need for such a measure involved a complaint that might arise both under the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended by the Bill, and on human rights grounds. In such a case, it would be stupid for two parallel law suits to proceed.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am no lawyer, but I should have thought that in such a case, where the courts joined the two complaints together, and the case involved an allegation that the 1976 Act had been breached, there would indeed be a role for the commission under existing legislation, which would make the new clause unnecessary.
I went on to consider what sort of case might involve an allegation of racial discrimination by a public authority, but would not come within the remit of either the 1976 Act or the Bill. I could envisage a situation in which a citizen chose to use the Human Rights Act 1998 to try to overturn one of the specific exemptions included in the Bill or in the 1976 Act. The hon. Gentleman's new clause, if agreed to, would give the CRE the right to spend time and money on seeking, via the Human Rights Act, to overturn those aspects of race relations legislation that had been agreed by Parliament.
For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical about the proposal, although the Minister or the hon. Gentleman may be able to reassure me. I take the view that if Parliament has chosen to include in legislation specific exemptions from general statutory obligations, changes to such arrangements should be sought through Parliament via the full legislative process, not through the back-door route of a challenge under the Human Rights Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): May I take this opportunity to warmly welcome you to your present seat, Mr. Speaker, and express the hope that you will long be warming it?
Members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill are aware of the Government's thinking on the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and

Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out our broad view. We welcome the support given by the Liberal Democrats and all other parties to the Human Rights Act 1998 when it was passed.
The new clause, like one tabled in Committee, would enable the CRE to provide assistance in relation to alleged breaches of the 1998 Act that include allegations of racial discrimination—not just claims where the principal issue was racial discrimination, but any claim that included any aspect of racial discrimination in the context of the Human Rights Act.
The Government explained in Committee that we had given a commitment to consider a request from the Disability Rights Commission for it to have the power to assist individuals in proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998, in light of the outcome of deliberations of the planned Human Rights Committee. Rather than considering those issues piecemeal, which would involve separately examining the Commission for Racial Equality, the DRC and the Equal Opportunities Commission, our view is that it would be better to consider in an holistic manner whether all the commissions should have the right to take such action. We feel that it is important to take such a broad-based approach—the situation should be examined in a wide context involving all three commissions, and we should give our view in due course. We also hope to take cognisance of the approach suggested by the Joint Committee, once it is established.
A further difficulty is that the new clause is not clear on how it relates to the rest of section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976, into which it would be inserted. For example, subsections (3) and (4) of that section describe how the commission should proceed on receipt of an application for assistance under the 1976 Act, but the new clause does not appear to make a similar provision in respect of claims for assistance under the Human Rights Act 1998. That technical deficiency would leave an unacceptable gap in that important area.
However, I do not want to inform the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we reject his suggestion. There are arguments for his position, and we want to examine them in a broader context.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Human Rights Committee, whose draft standing orders are under active consideration. We hope that it will start its work in the near future, when its membership has been decided. He knows very well that the usual channels decide such matters. Decisions about the Chairperson of the Committee and other matters will no doubt be made in the usual way, and I do not intend to venture further into them. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has his own route in that regard, and he doubtless knows how to make use of it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Although I note his comments on the envisaged time scale, I want to press the Minister not on that last matter, but on the first point that he made. What time scale do the Government envisage for the completion of their review about whether the power could be granted to all commissions, irrespective of the new Committee's timetable?

Mr. O'Brien: To some extent, we are dependent on the new Committee, whose views we want to hear and which must have an opportunity to discuss the matter.


I hope that it can do so quickly. The Government will examine the Committee's views and take a broad-based approach.
To some extent, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is important to decide on our approach in the near future, rather than in the longer term. If we took a view on the Disability Rights Commission, for example, it would be possible to make progress fairly quickly because of the way in which the legislation is framed. However, it might take longer to do so in respect of the EOC and the CRE because we might have to frame a legislative opportunity in order to take such action.
In response to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the cases that will be brought by the CRE will, primarily, involve the Race Relations Act 1976, but they may raise subsidiary points involving the Human Rights Act 1998. No doubt, such points will be raised during those proceedings. In that context, I should be very surprised if a lawyer said to a court, "I shall argue the case in relation to the Race Relations Act but not in relation to the Human Rights Act." The Government need to take a view on that matter sooner rather than later—I envisage the period involved to be months rather than years, but I do not want to be pressed further on that because it will be necessary to discuss with ministerial colleagues the appropriate speed at which we should make an announcement.

4 pm

Mr. Hughes: That was an entirely reasonable answer, for which I am grateful.
May I ask one last question about the timetable? When the public records of the last few months and this month are released to the public—as no doubt they soon will be, under freedom of information legislation—can we take it that they will show the Home Office to be actively pressing Government colleagues to set up the Human Rights Committee this very month?

Mr. O'Brien: No doubt the proceedings of the Joint Committee will be of great interest to all parliamentarians, and they will be able to find out about those proceedings in the way in which parliamentarians normally ascertain such matters. Certainly we want progress, and I am sure that the Liberal Democrats—in so far as they might be the source of any difficulties in the reaching of agreement between the usual channels—will seek not to be the source of such problems.
As I have said, we intend to look at all the commissions in an holistic way. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Hughes: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, those on the Conservative Front Bench and the Government will be delighted to hear that—so generous are we at the beginning of the new term, and so trusting of the Minister's good faith on the occasion of his and my first appearance since our return—I am happy to make a once-only offer. I am grateful for the Minister's assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

ANNUAL REPORT ON LEVEL OF DAMAGES AWARDED

'The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the level of damages awarded in cases brought by virtue of the amendments made to the 1976 Act by this Act.'.—[Mr. Lidington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee we had a thorough debate about compensation, in which I expressed fears that have been expressed in various quarters outside the House about the growth of a culture of litigation and compensation mirroring some of the worst examples that we have seen across the Atlantic. However, I welcome the opportunity to draw attention in this afternoon's short debate to the continuing view of Conservative Members that it is important for the Government, and all agencies that will be connected with the enforcement of the Bill once it is law, to have regard to the impact of compensation awards on the public authorities to which the Bill will apply.
Under the Bill, public authorities could be at risk from two directions. First, there would be the risk of litigation in regard to alleged discrimination on grounds of race. Secondly, following the introduction of a positive duty for scheduled public authorities to promote good race relations, there would be the possibility of judicial review of the actions of those authorities, to challenge whether they had exercised their statutory duty in a correct manner.
We should all be concerned about the risk of vexatious litigation, or of compensation awards—or, indeed, out-of-court settlements—to avoid oppressive legal costs that could lead to real difficulties for some public authorities. On 13 April, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said in Committee—this can be found at column 48 of the report of the proceedings—that the current level of awards in non-employment cases was about £1,000, and that the level of out-of-court settlements in advance of proceedings was about £6,000 per case.
Those figures sound relatively small, but, given that later this afternoon we are to debate the inclusion in schedule 2 of schools and their governing bodies, we must bear in mind that, to a small primary school and its governing body, a sum of £6,000, or even £1,000, is significant. We must carefully consider potential litigation and compensation awards that might face small public authorities, such as schools, which are governed by volunteers, not by professional executives. Even if the Ministers do not concede a formal annual report, I hope that they will agree to keep the matter under close scrutiny and be prepared to return to Parliament to amend the legislation, if the scale of compensation that is required to be paid out under the Bill proves to be oppressive on our public institutions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have only three brief points. First, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has made a perfectly reasonable point.
Secondly, new clause 5, which was not selected for debate—I make no criticism of the selection—goes wider than new clause 4, by addressing a point that is often


made during the passage of new legislation, which is that there should be an opportunity for a report to be made to Parliament on the working of the legislation in general. I would welcome such a report as one way of ensuring parliamentary accountability.
My third point relates broadly to damages and emerges from the argument made by the hon. Gentleman. The inconsistency of damages is a national issue: constituents have pointed out to me that if a relative or dependant dies as a result of criminal injury and if one chooses to make a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, one is entitled to a sum of—if memory serves—no more than £10,000, and possibly as little as £5,000.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is £3,750.

Mr. Hughes: It is certainly an extremely small sum. The problem is that, at the same time, we read in our newspapers about damages of hundreds of thousands of pounds that are awarded in the civil courts and elsewhere for comments that have caused offence or for constructive dismissal.
The matter may be one for the Cabinet Office or the joined-up government people—whoever they are—because a cross-departmental approach is needed to ensure some degree of fairness in the award of damages. I know that the courts are given guidelines, but damages can be awarded by other agencies. I simply want to draw attention to public unhappiness about the increasing gap between awards made in compensation for serious matters and the huge damages awarded for matters that, in the scheme of things, are relatively minor.
There is a general public policy interest to be addressed and I should be grateful if Ministers gave it their consideration. I hope that someone will write to me and the hon. Member for Aylesbury about how Government Departments intend to approach the matter.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have listened to the comments made about the need to reflect on the nature of payments made to victims of racial discrimination and others. I agree that we do not want to enter into a compensation culture, but missing from the arguments made so far—uncharacteristically so, in the case of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—has been the expression of any concern about victims. Should victims not be compensated if they have been discriminated against? Of course they should; they should have the right to some type of remedy.
It is quite right that we do not want to get into a situation in which vexatious litigants, who are a pest in the legal system, are able to bring frivolous cases before the courts. To some extent, we have to rely on our judges to be robust in dealing with vexatious litigants, and on the Legal Aid Board to ensure that people do not receive legal aid if they are seen to be merely vexatious. I think that most hon. Members are aware of people, in their constituencies or elsewhere, who have sought to abuse entry to the courts.
We need, however, to get the balance right. There is every reason for Parliament to be concerned about getting the balance right between the victim's right to receive some form of compensation and the need to ensure that money from the public purse is spent properly.
Mechanisms already exist to provide annually the type of information dealt with in new clause 4. The new clause would lead to duplication, bureaucracy and costs, particularly if police had to provide extensive information on the reasons why particular types of damages were allocated by a court in a particular case, which may involve issues in addition to racial discrimination. I am reluctant unnecessarily to impose such a burden on police, who are already required to do much of that work under section 95 reports.
Section 46 of the Race Relations Act 1976 already requires the Commission for Racial Equality to produce an annual report that includes a general survey of developments in the issues that fall within the scope of the commission's functions. The commission's reports usually contain details of awards of damages in cases that it represents. Additionally, those reports are laid before the House; indeed, I have just approved the laying of the most recent report.
As explained in the Bill's explanatory notes, in cases represented by the commission in 1997–98, awards averaged approximately £1,000, settlements averaged approximately £2,000, and pre-litigation settlements settled by commission officials averaged approximately £6,000. We would expect the commission to continue to report on damages awarded in cases that it represents, including cases brought under new provisions outlawing race discrimination under the Bill.
Although the Bill does not provide financial remedies in respect of the positive duty in clause 2 to promote race equality, again we would expect the commission's annual report to cover any enforcement action that it has taken in the year in question under the new provisions. The Government therefore feel that the current reporting requirements in section 46 of the 1976 Act already provide for what is necessary and appropriate.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not alarming—far more alarming than the issue of compensation payments to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred—that public bodies continue to be found to be discriminating, and, therefore, that there continue to be genuine cases of discrimination? Surely the whole emphasis of the Bill should be that, in this day and age, race discrimination and gender discrimination—which we are not debating today—simply should not occur in public bodies.

Mr. O'Brien: Although, by and large, our public authorities do not discriminate, there have been cases in which they have been found to have done so. That is regrettable. The Bill's underlying basis, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is the attempt to end unacceptable discrimination in our public authorities, and to ensure that we have public authorities that treat people with the respect that they deserve and to which they are entitled.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister mentioned the commission's annual report, which many hon. Members are familiar with and many of us receive. Will it list all the awards of damages or only a summary of those awards? If it contains only a summary, will information be provided to enable people to locate information on the full awards?

Mr. O'Brien: As I understand it, there is a summary in the report. It does not list all the awards, because I suspect that some of them are the subject of legal confidentiality. Some may be out-of-court settlements that contain certain clauses in the contracts. I do not know the extent to which the Commission for Racial Equality provides information on the awards, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to find out, I can certainly do so. However, I have always found the CRE to be very open in providing information and background briefings on individual and general issues to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lidington: I was somewhat disappointed that the Minister underrated the deterrent impact on public authorities and private organisations of the costs of litigation. One of the most unsatisfactory aspects of several recent highly publicised cases has been that some public bodies have made public statements that they would agree to an out-of-court settlement involving the payments of many thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, not because they have conceded that they have discriminated—they continue to assert that they have not—but because they could not afford the time and the money that would have to be spent on contesting litigation if matters were to proceed to law. That is not satisfactory for anyone.
I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that public authorities in particular should set the lead and resist racial discrimination. As far as they can, they should ensure that all their conduct and practices are designed to prevent such discrimination taking place. However, it is also true that different judgments in the court cases involving the definition of indirect discrimination that have taken place since 1976 have determined the scope of such discrimination in different ways. Therefore, it is possible for an organisation—or an individual—to believe that it has acted in a way that complies with the law only to find that, after legal argument, the judgment is that certain practices are tantamount to indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 and need to be changed. There is some uncertainty in the current statute.
I was grateful to the Minister for reminding us that the Commission for Racial Equality has a duty to publish a report each year and that that report includes at least some information on the level of compensation awards. I hope that it is a matter to which the chairman of the commission and his team will continue to give their attention. As a result of this debate and those that took place in Committee, I hope that Ministers will also continue to keep the matter under review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

DISCRIMINATION BY POLICE AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out from "a" to end of line 17 on page 2 and insert—
'public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination.

(2) In this section "public authority"—

(a) includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature; but
(b) does not include any person mentioned in subsection (3).

(3) The persons mentioned in this subsection are—

(a) either House of Parliament;
(b) a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament;
(c) the Security Service;
(d) the Secret Intelligence Service;
(e) the Government Communications Headquarters; and
(f) any unit or part of a unit of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in carrying out its functions.

(4) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (2)(a) if the nature of the act is private.

(5) This section is subject to sections 19BA to 19E.

(6) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any act of discrimination which—

(a) is made unlawful by virtue of any other provision of this Act; or
(b) would be so made but for any provision made by or under this Act.

Exceptions or further exceptions from section 19B for judicial and legislative acts etc

19BA.—(1) Section 19B does not apply to—

(a) any judicial act (whether done by a court, tribunal or other person); or
(b) any act done on the instructions, or on behalf, of a person acting in a judicial capacity.

(2) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, making, confirming or approving any enactment or Order in Council or any instrument made by a Minister of the Crown under an enactment.

(3) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, making or approving arrangements, or imposing requirements or conditions, of a kind falling within section 41.

(4) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, imposing a requirement, or giving an express authorisation, of a kind mentioned in section 19C(3) in relation to the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions.

(5) In this section—
immigration and nationality functions" has the meaning given in section 19C; and
Minister of the Crown" includes the National Assembly for Wales and a member of the Scottish Executive.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 21, 22 and 38 to 40.

Mr. O'Brien: There have been several discussions during the Bill's passage through this House and the other place about the approach that should be taken to the definition of public authorities for the purposes of section 19B of the Race Relations Act 1976. The choice is essentially between a listing approach and a generic definition as used in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government have throughout listened to the arguments, both inside and outside the House, particularly those about the need to avoid small gaps arising in coverage, which was a perceived risk with the listing approach that was originally proposed.
In response to those concerns, we made a commitment in Committee to introduce amendments that would provide for the adoption of a generic definition for the purposes of defining public authorities. These amendments meet that commitment. They delete the provisions for a listing approach for the purposes of section 19B of the 1976 Act and provide instead for a definition based on section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. As flagged up in Committee, the generic definition has been adjusted to allow for a very limited number of specific exemptions—namely, for the Houses of Parliament, the legislative functions of the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and United Kingdom Ministers, the intelligence agencies and judicial acts.
The Government stress that functions have not been exempted other than where there are good reasons for doing so. Our approach is governed by the principle that the Bill should not fetter the legislative functions of Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. Ministers will remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny but, like others involved in the legislative process, they must retain the ability to make legislation that discriminates, where that is justified—for example, to implement immigration legislation that requires discrimination on grounds of nationality, or social security or education legislation that discriminates on grounds of residence. That is consistent with the existing provisions of the 1976 Act, which provide that acts done with statutory authority are not unlawful.
To include the intelligence and security agencies in the Bill would have required special clauses to safeguard against claimants misusing certain provisions to undermine the operational effectiveness of those agencies. The necessary safeguards would, in practice, have the same effect as excluding the agencies from the Bill. The Government therefore believe that it is better to continue to make the exemption clear, as we did with the listing approach, rather than having it obscured by special clauses which might be a matter of judicial interpretation. We want the position of the security and intelligence agencies to be very clear.
Nor do the Government think it appropriate that decisions of courts and tribunals should be challenged by way of proceedings in the county or sheriff court under section 19B. Allowing civil action against judges would interfere with the concept of judicial immunity, and the Government would not wish the Bill to cut across that. Immunity is an aspect of the principle of an independent judiciary. The independence of the judiciary is a key feature of the British constitution and runs parallel with immunity.

Mr. David Lammy: This debate about the nature of public authority is clearly more than simply a semantic debate about definition. Many private companies and organisations carry out their business under a clear public remit. Many of those profit-making companies have habitually neglected to promote, employ and support ethnic minority people in the workplace. My constituents will welcome the amendment, but I hope that we are moving towards a situation in which racial equality is

about the economic as well as the social context of Britain in the 21st century. The amendment, as it applies to private organisations, is very important in that regard.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. We should ensure that private sector organisations which undertake public functions should know that they will have obligations under the race relations legislation, and that the Bill will cover them in so far as they undertake the public functions for which they are contracted. Indeed, Group 4 has today taken the trouble to say publicly that it is delighted that the Government have decided to use the Human Rights Act definition of a public authority in the Bill. Group 4 says that it firmly believes that there should be a level playing field between the public and private sectors in all social policy matters. I welcome Group 4's announcement; it is entirely along the lines that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he wants to go.
Let me return to judicial immunity, which is an important part of our constitution. Judicial immunity does not mean that a person lacks a remedy against racial discrimination or any other form of bias, but the proper avenue for a challenge in the courts is by an appeal, not by making a fresh claim against a judge. The fair and efficient functioning of the justice system requires us to avoid satellite litigation and the reopening of cases.
I must flag up another important issue. It will be for the courts to decide whether a public body is a public authority for the purposes of the legislation and whether a particular function is a public function. That bears on the point that I made earlier about Group 4 and private companies and other private bodies that undertake public functions. The Government are grateful to those who have contributed to the way in which the legislation will be interpreted, especially to private companies such as Group 4, which have said that they will be happy to be brought within the legislation.
Having listened to all the contributions, the Government are also grateful to Members of both Houses of Parliament who have given their views on how we should take forward that definition and on whether we should use either the list or the generic approach. We have shown that we have listened with great care to the debate. There was a genuine argument about the various public functions that might have slipped through the net if we had used the listing approach and, therefore, we think that an approach based on the Human Rights Act 1998 is the best that can be delivered. In due course, the courts will make judgments on cases under the 1998 Act. That will define matters of public function and public authority. I hope that that will soon clarify the matters covered by the 1998 Act and the Bill, and that hon. Members will agree to the amendment.

Mr. Lidington: I welcome the Government's decision to move from a listing approach to a generic approach. As the Minister said in his opening speech, both sides of the House were involved in a constructive debate on the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his noble Friends can take pride in the way they helped to promote the idea. As a result, we shall have a better approach than that under the Bill as originally drafted.
I want to ask the Minister some questions to tease out in more detail exactly which persons and what activities will be exempt under amendment No. 2. First, I shall deal


with Parliament. I accept completely the Minister's argument that the legislative function of both Houses of Parliament should remain free and that they should not have to look over their shoulders at the Bill, but I am intrigued that the exemption will also apply to
a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
That strikes me as a phrase that could be said to apply very widely—to House of Commons administration and staff, as well as Officers of the House and perhaps even Hansard reporters. Will the Minister flesh out a little more which people the Government intend the phrase to cover?
4.30 pm
The Bill will now exclude the security and intelligence services and GCHQ. I support those exclusions, but if those organisations are to be excluded, why not the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and others who work closely with the security and intelligence services and may well be party to operational knowledge that the Government rightly want to keep secret? Those police organisations are engaged in very sensitive and secret work against organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking. Do they not need the same protection that the Government want to afford to the security and intelligence services?
A comparable point could be made about members of the armed forces on active service. We discussed that in Committee, and it was debated in the House of Lords. Should not the exception that the Government are applying to the security and intelligence services and to members of the armed forces assisting GCHQ also apply to members of the special forces, and especially those on active service? There are units whose operations have traditionally been regarded as a matter for secrecy by Governments of both political colours.
The Minister said that the courts would have to rule in due course on what is a public authority. In Committee, I referred to the position of the Churches and I make no apology for doing so again. As an obvious example of my point, civil registrars, as public officials, will be subject to the provisions in the Bill in carrying out their duties involving the preparation of couples and the conduct of the marriage ceremony, but will ministers of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland be similarly subject? Surely those ministers carry out a public function when they, too, conduct marriages. Have the Government engaged in any consultation with the Churches about the impact that the Bill might have on them, especially in the light of the controversy that blew up on the matter during proceedings on the Human Rights Act 1998?
I have no problem with the Government's proposal that judicial authorities—judges, magistrates and tribunals, in their judicial capacity—should be exempt from the normal operations of the Bill, but does that exemption also apply to Ministers of the Crown when they act in a quasi-judicial capacity, for example when they place themselves in the shoes of a judge in setting the tariff for a life sentence prisoner? I should be grateful for answers to those questions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like other colleagues, I am grateful for the progress that we have made on this matter,

and for the fact that, when we came up with what seemed to be the best way forward in terms of the definition of "public authority", the debate was listened to.
First, it strikes me that that produces a shorter Bill, and that must be a good thing. I will comment on the way in which the Bill could be further shortened when we come to another debate.
Secondly, it is a good idea for the definition of "public authority" in one piece of legislation passed by a Parliament to be the same as the definition of "public authority" in another piece of legislation passed by that Parliament, albeit a year or so later. That seems to be a good idea in terms of political and parliamentary practice, and I welcome it. I am grateful for the work done by colleagues in the Lords and for the debate that we had in Committee.
I have a supplementary question, which picks up on one of the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about definition. It concerns the point about employees or functionaries of the Church or other religious organisations carrying out a public function.
I raise that not only because I have responsibility for these matters on the Liberal Democrat Benches but because the matter has been raised in the context of prospective European legislation. Last week, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was given leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill so that we may at least take the debate forward and discover what exactly is allowed. The hon. Gentleman's Bill would exempt religious organisations and although it was not on all fours with this proposal, it raised the same set of issues.
What we are discussing now is clearly a narrower issue because it is about people acting for religious organisations who, in that context, are also acting as a public authority. The conduct of marriages is a good example. People in this country can have their marriage conducted entirely in a religious ceremony, and do not, as in other countries, have to have a separate civil ceremony. I should be grateful for elaboration on that matter and on whether Ministers have been advised how—if at all—the measure ties in with prospective European legislation on such matters.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The welcome from both hon. Gentlemen speaking for the Opposition parties is music to my ears. The Government are pleased that we have been able to take a constructive and listening approach during the debate, and grateful for the contributions from all parts of the House on these issues.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about the areas covered in respect of Parliament. The existing Act already covers employment functions and certain unlawful acts—they are set out in part IV—and areas that may be subject to parliamentary privilege. It covers the provision of goods, facilities and services.
The Government do not wish to fetter the legislative functions of Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly in extending the Act. In the case of the United Kingdom Parliament, there are issues of parliamentary privilege. Interference with the privileges of Parliament should obviously be avoided. The first report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege has looked at the need for, and recommended, clarification of the definition of parliamentary privilege in relation to each House's privilege to administer its own internal affairs.
It would be pre-emptive and impractical to try to resolve the issues involved for the purposes of the Bill before critical decisions have been made in relation to the wider issue of privilege. We are not therefore proposing to extend any further the application of the Bill to the UK Parliament. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Human Rights Act 1998.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. We envisage that it is an area directly involved in the preparation of legislation. It is not an exclusion that would deal with areas not directly involved in preparing legislation and the proceedings of this place. That is the position as far as I understand it. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter and I raised it with officials. The definition is quite tightly drawn.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was a little concerned that the measure might look a little wide, but considering Pepper v. Hart and being aware of all that, 1 am indicating that we intend it to be construed in a way that has direct applicability to legislation and to the proceedings in this Parliament relating to debates.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury also asked me why the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are not included. Following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, our intention was to bring the police within the realm of the Race Relations Act. As NCIS and the National Crime Squad are akin to police forces and their director-generals have responsibilities which are equivalent to those of a chief constable, the Government believe that, in order to meet the commitment made in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report to apply race relations legislation to police forces, NCIS and NCS must be covered. The Government do not envisage that the problems associated with including the intelligence and security agencies would be replicated for NCIS and NCS, and indeed we have no reasons to have any concerns that this might cause problems in terms of the operational effectiveness—or anything else—of those two organisations, which are well aware of their responsibilities to ensure that they do not racially discriminate.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about special forces. I have had no requests from the Ministry of Defence to exclude them, so I assume that there is a degree of happiness with the current situation. However, just to be sure that there is no difficulty, I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point with Ministers at the MOD. These days, the Army in particular has a proactive view on race equality and many parts of our armed forces have a good and improving record in that respect.
The hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me about a more complex issue—whether the legislation would cover ministers of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in relation to their role as registrars. They will be covered when they carry out a public function but not when they carry out private functions as ministers of the Church. I envisage that the public function of signing the various documents which relate to their legal and public duties will be covered. However, decisions about who should have a service conducted in their Church, for example, will be an issue for the Church. The same would apply to other Church-related decisions. However, in recent decades Churches have been particularly conscious of the need to ensure that they regard race equality as

particularly important and I have no real concern that the Churches will find themselves subject to any substantial litigation in relation to the Bill. The Churches are well aware of their responsibilities on race equality and I suspect that most of them will welcome the inclusion in the Bill of at least their public functions.
Finally, the hon. Member for Aylesbury asked me whether the legislation covered Government Ministers exercising a judicial function. The answer is yes. An immigration function, for example, would be covered. That is not a good illustration as immigration matters are excluded, but any other quasi-judicial decision would be covered by the exemption. However, we want to make sure that Ministers are aware that they have moral as well as legal responsibilities and that they must not discriminate unless there is a good public interest reason for doing so. Later amendments relate to circumstances in which discrimination may be proper and lawful and may well have the support of the House, but normally that would not be the case.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the issues, and I am pleased with the warm welcome that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have given to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 18 to end of line 31 on page 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 38, after "(5)", insert—
'in connection with the granting or refusal of—

(a) pre-entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom;
(b) leave to enter the United Kingdom;
(c) leave to remain in the United Kingdom;
(d) a condition or conditions of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
(e) citizenship of the United Kingdom.'.

Government amendments Nos. 3, 35 to 37, 41, 42, 44 and 45.

Mr. Cohen: This is a good Bill which implements the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and tackles the real problems of direct and indirect institutional racism. However, my amendment deletes the exemption of immigration and asylum matters from the institutional racism provisions.
I can put the case by putting on record an article in journal No. 56 of the Campaign against Racism and Fascism. It is by Frances Webber, a leading immigration lawyer. She puts the matter succinctly, albeit a little pejoratively towards the Home Secretary. The article, which is called "The last frontier: immigration controls and racism", asks:
Why does a minister who wants to be remembered for his anti-racism keep on giving aid and comfort to racists? In the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill currently going through Parliament, Home Secretary Jack Straw is once again trying to face both ways at once. On the one hand, the Act allows immigrants and asylum-seekers to appeal against immigration decisions and to obtain damages from a county court, if such decisions have discriminated on grounds of race or colour. On the other hand,


immigration officers will be authorised to discriminate on the grounds of "nationality, ethnic or national origin" in carrying out their functions under the Immigration and Nationality Acts.
In the Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton sought to justify the provision by talking about the need to stop "scams" operated by Chinese nationals masquerading as Malaysian or Singaporean Chinese which, he claimed, made it acceptable for immigration officers to check every Chinese-looking person.
The question puzzling us lawyers who act for immigrants and asylum-seekers is this: how on earth are we going to prove unlawful race discrimination on the part of an immigration officer, if it is not unlawful for an immigration officer to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their "perceived ethnic origin"? It is ironic that a law brought in to counter institutional racism ends up—so far as immigration is concerned at least—by rationalising and further institutionalising it.
Notwithstanding the comments regarding the Home Secretary, there is a fundamental point there concerning the complete exemption of the immigration and asylum service. I tabled the amendment to get a response from the Minister on why this exists, when the thrust of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the Bill is to tackle institutional racism wherever it occurs, including in the public sector. I do not see why immigration should have that total exemption.
Proposed section 19C states that it will not be
unlawful to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins…
where the act is by a Minister acting personally or an immigration official acting in accordance with an authorisation by the Minister, or with respect to a particular class of case authorised by statute or statutory instrument. If this House has delegated the power to a Minister, I see that he could exercise that power. However, I am concerned as to how he will delegate power—presumably down to a civil servant, or even to junior civil servants. I would like the operation of the system to be spelt out. Will the exemption also apply to a junior civil servant in the immigration and nationality directorate acting in the name of the relevant Minister or civil servant?
How will the Minister be held accountable? Will ministerial responsibility extend to the actions of the junior civil servants in the immigration and nationality directorate who act in his name under the proposed legislation, or will he be able to palm things off on the civil service, as happened with the BSE scandal? That is a serious point about ministerial power and its possible extension to civil servants.
In the context of junior immigration officers who may exercise power and to whom the exemption may apply, there have been cases in the past of such officers being sympathisers and supporters of openly racist parties such as the National Front or the British Movement. Although I have not heard of a case for many years, there have been such cases in the past. I presume that disciplinary measures are in place. I ask the Minister to confirm that. How will they operate against an officer who is openly racist if it is lawful under the Bill for him to discriminate? Those questions need answering.
I understand that there is a delay in determining and authorising the classes of cases in respect of which discrimination will be lawful. Perhaps the provision will not be effected until next April or later because the immigration and nationality directorate needs more time to determine those classes of cases. If that is so, will the

classes be spelt out to Parliament, perhaps with an opportunity for a discussion on them? They do not appear in the Bill. Can they be changed arbitrarily? Can new classes be added without anyone other than civil servants knowing?
If the Government are going to persist with the exemption for the immigration service, what activities will be authorised as lawful racial discrimination? A broad, blanket authorisation is not right. I am worried about the classes of cases to which the clause refers. Racial discrimination could take place on the basis of scare campaigns. For example, an argument was made for trying to ban all Kenyan Asians and Ugandan Asians as a class, regardless of the merits of the cases of individuals, who were facing perhaps torture or death in the countries that they were leaving. The same could apply currently to the Roma.
The provision could lead to a susceptibility to scaremongering, and to racial discrimination in immigration and asylum policy—through banning whole categories of people—becoming legal under the Bill. Another recent example is the Kosovans—perhaps they could all have been banned under the Bill. I shall be interested in the way in which the Minister deals with that concern.
Today, I received a letter from Mr. Richard Jarman, the parliamentary officer of the Commission for Racial Equality. It stated:
In a meeting I had with the Refugee Council and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the one activity where discrimination occurs that is of real concern is the detention of asylum seekers on arrival (when they have committed no offence in the UK whatsoever). Currently certain nationalities and people of Roma ethnicity are nearly always detained. The CRE, Refugee Council. ILPA all say that detention of asylum seekers should not be done on the basis of nationality or ethnic or national origin but on the basis of the particular circumstances of each individual asylum seeker.
Clearly that will not happen given the way in which the law is framed. There is a potential blanket provision to discriminate. There should not be a blanket authorisation of discrimination when dealing with asylum seekers on arrival. That is clearly different from detention prior to deportation, which often happens after a person has breached his conditions of entry. Blanket authorisation on arrival has a possible institutional racist content.
The role of the monitor is set out in proposed section 19D. I know that he will submit an annual report to Parliament, but what can he say? How can he refer to any institutional racism in the immigration and nationality service or even on the part of a Minister? Will that be exempt under the law? Could such racism be deemed legal in immigration matters? What power will the monitor have? Will he have the power, for example, to see all the papers and files in a case? Can a Minister or civil servant deny access to them?
The monitor might be toothless, rather like the prison ombudsman, who was denied access to papers and files by the previous Government. Will he be able to investigate every case where a charge of racism is brought, or will he not even be notified of cases where racism has been alleged? Will he be able to require revised consideration by the immigration and nationality service, perhaps of a Minister, and a possible new decision where, in his opinion, racism has occurred in the service?
If the monitor is not to be able to do any of these things, what can he do? Without any of the powers to which I have referred, he will be toothless and not worth even an annual report to Parliament.
These are important matters. The Government have set off on the path of total exemption for the immigration and nationality service, and it is not the right approach. It might be a matter of balance but total exemption is not the answer. If my amendment and those of Liberal Democrats are not accepted, the matter should be kept under review. Perhaps an amendment might be introduced later. I await my hon. Friend's answers with interest.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the debate. Effectively, the amendments set out three options. The matter was the subject of considerable debate in Committee.
We face the danger of bad drafting. The Government are seeking to amend the Race Relations Act 1976 by inserting a new clause that states what is unlawful and by introducing a supplementary new clause, proposed section 19C, which sets out exceptions to what is unlawful. Later, there are tabled the exceptions to the exceptions to what is unlawful. I am not, and have never wished to be, a parliamentary draftsman, but I hope that we can do a bit better. The Bill has to go to the other place when we have dealt with it, so perhaps someone can consider whether we can make it easier for people to use.
5 pm
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) has tabled the most widely drawn amendment. It would remove new section 19C, which is to be inserted into the 1976 Act. The Minister's proposal in Government amendment No. 3, which he will speak to later, qualifies the list of Acts with immigration and nationality functions that come within the exemption and are, therefore, outside the protection of the legislation, by stating that the list will not apply to certain activities. It does not say what activities it covers, but refers to another part of the legislation. It excludes
sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 so far as they relate to offences under Part III of that Act.
Those are in fact policing functions in relation to the activities of the immigration and nationality directorate. Again, it might be helpful to make that clear.
Our amendment seeks to do what the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead hinted might be a way forward. It would allow the law to apply in general terms: people could not discriminate in their work in the immigration and nationality directorate unless those activities were on the legislated list. We believe that those activities should certainly and logically be included in the list. In relation to immigration, there are clearly activities in which discrimination on the basis of nationality, for example, is justifiable.
Our amendment sets out five exemption categories. The first is
in connection with the granting or refusal of…pre-entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom.
It is entirely logical to allow people to be discriminated against if the view is taken that, for example, the entitlement of someone from a Commonwealth country is different from that of someone from a European Union country or someone who is from neither. The second

category relates to leave to enter, which is the permission granted when people arrive here as opposed to the permission granted before they leave to come here. The third category concerns permission to stay here—leave to remain. The fourth is in connection with conditions that are imposed on a leave to enter or remain. The fifth relates to citizenship, because we discriminate against people on the basis of where they come from and their relationship with this country. We propose that those should be exempted categories. I hope that, at worst, we get confirmation from the Minister that, in light of our debate in Committee, the Government will move in that direction.
I do not pretend to have a perfect understanding or knowledge of this subject, but we would argue that those are the most logical categories for exemption and, to take the view of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, that no others appear to need that protection. I stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong. He might say that I have forgotten a category and that a sixth should be added. However, our case is that the categories should be specified in the Bill. If we do not do that, we will give a "relevant person", who is defined as
a Minister of the Crown acting personally; or—
the hon. Gentleman alluded to this—
any other person acting in accordance with relevant authorisation,
who could be quite a long way down the hierarchy of responsibility, the ability to make decisions in particular cases. The Bill as it stands leaves it to Ministers to define at a later date the particular class of case. We are effectively providing for secondary legislation, although it might not technically be called that—again, I stand to be corrected. Decisions are to be made later by Ministers when we have given general permission under the Act. Our argument is not unfamiliar. The provision gives Ministers huge discretion and does not even provide the benefit of allowing us to know what the category will be, even though Ministers have been much better on that matter recently than they have in the past. Sometimes when a Bill is introduced, we see a draft of regulations under it before we approve it. We know what the Government have in mind and can be clear about what is expected. However, this Bill does not make provision for a schedule or document setting out what the authorisations are likely to cover.
In addition, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead pointed out, we do not have a date by which such a decision will be made. I accept that, if we are going to go down that road, the Bill has to be introduced before any power under it can be exercised. However, the time gap could last several months. This debate is a bit like our earlier debate on the definition of public authority. It is better to specify clearly the categories under the Bill, but I accept that Ministers may argue that one category, or perhaps two categories, have been forgotten. I accept that categories have to be clear.
This issue is controversial in the world outside Parliament, so I shall explain when we accept that it is right to discriminate and allow that power, and when it is wrong. In Committee, we said that we would limit the scope for permitted discrimination on the grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins to functions of the immigration and nationality directorate, when nationality is a legitimate ground for difference in treatment, or when ethnic or national origin could be a ground for different treatment.
That would not interfere with rules or procedures requiring visas, entry permits or work permits for people of some, but not all, non-UK nationalities. That is quite understandable, as every country works on that basis, and the issue would, rightly, remain separate from anti-discrimination legislation. To take a slightly controversial example, we would not stop the Home Office taking into account the ethnicity of Romanies or Roma people from eastern Europe when deciding their asylum applications, as it is a relevant factor that, clearly, is not to be excluded. However, we would prohibit discrimination on the grounds simply of nationality or ethnicity in circumstances such as those described by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. It would therefore be impossible to say that one was going to detain all asylum seekers from Kosovo, but not those from Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro or elsewhere.
It is important to make that distinction as the decision about asylum seekers and their treatment consists of two elements. The first is how asylum seekers are treated when they come into this country and whether they are free—I shall return to that in a second—and the second is how their application is determined. In law, it is clear that every asylum application must be treated on an individual basis. The Government accept that case, which is unarguable under the United Nations convention on refugees. It is also clear that there should be no presumption about detention for any particular category, which should be decided on an individual basis.
There is a dispute on this issue, not so much between Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but between both our parties and the Conservative party. We believe that it is against international law for asylum seekers to be detained when they come to this country simply on the basis that they are asylum seekers. We accept that it is proper to detain them if they have a criminal record or if intelligence leads the authorities to believe that they could break the rules, escape or be unwilling to be subject to authority. However, my understanding is that such discrimination is illegal in the areas covered by the European convention, and possibly also in the European Union.
I tested that during my one official foreign visit—all Members of Parliament are authorised to make one two-day European Union visit during each year. I went to Finland. My visit coincided with a certain football match, at which I considered it important to watch crowd control measures, having dealt with the Football (Disorder) Bill in Parliament. The police in this country—the National Criminal Intelligence Service and others—and the Finnish police were extremely helpful, and my visit was very informative.
I asked about asylum seekers, who come to Finland mainly from Russia and Estonia, and some from elsewhere in eastern Europe. The Finnish police take the view that it would be illegal to detain people who come as asylum seekers. There are reception centres, quite properly, but no detention centres.

Mr. Winnick: I do not make a party point, although it will probably be interpreted as such, and I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman speaks from a genuine wish for tolerance. I do not question that at all, but what he says

seems to conflict with the attitude of Liberal councillors in my constituency and in the Walsall borough, as demonstrated in correspondence and speeches relating to a single family that is to be housed temporarily in a ward represented by a Liberal Democrat councillor. I have pointed out before that there seems to be a discrepancy between the hon. Gentleman's fine words—again, I entirely accept his genuineness and sincerity—and those of some of his councillors.

Mr. Hughes: Obviously, I do not know the details of the case, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about it, I am happy to see any correspondence or documentation that he wants to give me. I shall not prejudge the matter. No one is perfect and our councillors may be wrong; they may be right. I cannot judge, but I have sometimes been in difficulty on the same subject. I understand the pressures and the difficulties, but we must be clear about the issues. I have large numbers of asylum seekers in my constituency and I am aware df the potential issues that that can generate in the community. If there are matters that the hon. Gentleman wants to bring to my attention, I shall make sure that they are examined.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful.

Mr. Hughes: If there is a serious allegation, I would rather see the documents that support it.
There are various stages in the treatment of asylum seekers, during which it is possible to test whether discrimination exists. If the amendment were accepted, it might affect other matters, such as the financial support systems. We would argue that it should not be possible to discriminate generally by people's ethnic origin and where they come from, and that there should be no generalisation in respect of the dispersal system around the country or the withdrawal of support.
The amendment would also make it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly on any racial grounds, including race, colour, nationality, citizenship, or ethnic or national origin, with regard to support arrangements, finance and so on. However, there could still be positive measures to help people who, for example, may not speak English. People with particular needs may require positive action and extra support. It is a difficult debate, but I understand that such exceptions will be lawful, because they come under another part of the Act—section 53—which allows special needs to be looked after.
We are discussing a difficult matter, open to misinterpretation if we are not careful. It will be much better regulated by clear language, rather than open-ended language, and by Parliament dealing with the issue, rather than leaving it for subsequent authorisation. It is clear that in such difficult areas of policy—refugees, immigration, asylum seekers and the like—decisions must be seen to be fair by applicants and their representatives, and by society as a whole.
5.15 pm
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance either that he is willing to consider the proposition that we have advanced or that the authorisations will cover only the sort of list that I described when I discussed the five examples contained in our amendment. If he gave a categorical statement about what the authorisations would cover,


even if he did so on a later occasion, that would be some consolation to those of us who are interested in the matter, both in the House and outside it. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead made it clear that there was such interest.

Mr. Lidington: We should remind ourselves of two points. First, illegal immigration remains a serious challenge for this country. Attempts at illegal immigration are frequently assisted by organised criminals who traffic in human beings, much as they might traffic in drugs or other contraband goods. Secondly, the officials whom we charge with enforcing our system of immigration control have to take complicated decisions that involve judgments about the quality of evidence that they receive from individuals. They might also have to take such decisions, which are of great importance, quickly and under great pressure. Those officials deserve to know that Parliament will provide them with certainty about what they are, and are not, allowed to do.
I, and, I am sure, hon. Members from all parties, have sat alongside entry clearance officers at posts overseas, immigration officers at ports and case workers at the Croydon headquarters of the immigration and nationality directorate. On each occasion, I was struck by the professionalism of the officers concerned—they have absolute commitment and try to examine the merits of a case and the quality of evidence that is presented to them—and by the immense responsibility that we devolve to them when they take decisions about cases involving individual men, women and children.
As I made clear in Committee and earlier, I start from the premise that some immigration exemption is necessary. I was persuaded by the arguments that were contained in the letter of 26 January from Lord Bassam of Brighton to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) alluded. Lord Bassam explained why the Home Office believed that some exemption for discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin should, in particular and defined circumstances, remain within the law. That remains my position.
I hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that his amendment would lead to greater clarity and greater control over ministerial discretion. However, as I listened to his speech, various questions occurred to me. He invites us to agree to an amendment that would limit the exemption to a list of specific functions of the immigration and nationality directorate and the migration and visa department of the Foreign Office, but what functions would his amendment exclude from the exemption?
The hon. Gentleman discussed the detention of various people. As I understand the arrangements for detaining people at the Oakington detention centre, decisions are made on the basis that, on the whole, people are sent there because the immigration officer at a port believes that they have a fairly straightforward case, about which an initial decision can be taken within relatively few days.
I have not examined the statistics in detail, but I think it conceivable that analysis of the nationalities of people detained in Oakington would show particular nationalities to be represented disproportionately, in terms of the proportion that they represented of the total number of

seekers of asylum in the United Kingdom. If amendment No. 54 were passed, a court might conceivably decide that the fast-track rule applied in respect of Oakington was indirectly discriminatory on grounds of race. I think there is a danger that the amendment would introduce more rather than less ambiguity.
Although I do not close my mind to arguments in favour of further amendments, my inclination is to leave the provision as it stands.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, too, and I accept that fast-track systems start with presumptions. However—in this regard, as in others, there may not be much between the hon. Gentleman's view and mine—whereas a presumption might be made that would put someone into a category in respect of consideration of his case, the actual consideration would be on the basis of the paperwork, the facts and the information collected. That, not national, ethnic or other discrimination, would be the determining factor.

Mr. Lidington: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I still think that his amendment has the potential to reintroduce a measure of ambiguity.
I welcome Government amendment No. 3, which, as I read it, would remove from the scope of the exemption the powers—effectively—of a constable which were conferred on immigration officers by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I think that the reference to sections 28A and 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 refers to new powers conferred by the 1999 Act. If so, I consider the amendment sensible.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: There has been much discussion during the Bill's passage, both here and in another place, about the exemption for immigration and nationality functions provided in new section 19C in clause 1. Amendment No. 1 would remove altogether the exemption, and the associated provision creating an independent monitor whose function would be to account to Parliament on its operation. Amendment No. 54 would narrow the immigration exemption in new section 19C.
At present the Bill allows discrimination that is proper and necessary, on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin, in the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions. Those are defined as functions exercisable by any of the enactments listed in subsection (5). The amendment seeks to prescribe only a limited number of functions in which discrimination may occur.
I am fully aware of the concerns expressed about the immigration and nationality exemption. The Government have said on many occasions that it should be no wider than is absolutely necessary. The amendments, however, would damage our attempts to provide a fast, firm and fair immigration control. They ignore a number of the principal functions contained in the immigration legislation in which discrimination may well be proper and necessary. In particular, they would not permit discrimination in respect of the removal, deportation or detention of individuals who did not qualify for leave to enter or remain. Detention, for example, is sometimes necessary to enforce the removal of those who do not qualify for leave to remain, and who will not comply voluntarily with instructions to leave the United Kingdom.
As hon. Members will know, owing to operational factors such as the ready availability of national travel documentation, or the preparedness of other states to


allow us to return their nationals using other forms of documentation, some nationalities are easier to remove than others. In respect of certain nationalities, enforcing removal can be a prolonged process. In such cases, when there is no immediate prospect of removal, detention may not be appropriate.
It is necessary for the immigration service and the integrated casework directorate to conduct special nationality-specific exercises, involving the fast-tracking of cases in response to sudden or sustained influxes of certain nationals seeking to circumvent control. In particular, the immigration service needs to ensure that resources are targeted at the nationalities that offer the best prospect of successful removal, often in the light of other Governments' attitudes to accepting the return of their nationals. I am not convinced that the amendments would permit such activity.
At ports the immigration service requires the ability—under close ministerial supervision—to treat people differently on the basis of their nationality and, occasionally, their ethnic or national origin when it has intelligence that, for example, certain national travel documents are being abused, or individuals or groups of one nationality are presenting themselves as nationals of another country in order to benefit from compassionate policies or asylum procedures that are being applied to one nationality or ethnic group but not to others. The Kosovan situation is an obvious example.
We have encountered a number of rackets emanating from various countries. There are also many examples of the immigration system discriminating positively in favour of individuals on the basis of their nationality or ethnic or national origins. For example, in the past we have given special treatment to Kosovan Albanians, during the recent conflict in the Balkans. Kosovan Serbs were not treated in the same way, for obvious reasons.
There are other examples in which guidance to asylum caseworkers indicates that one ethnic or national group from a particular country should be treated differently from another. The ethnic or national origin of the applicant is a key consideration in the determination of applications for asylum and exceptional leave. It is clearly important to establish whether a particular ethnic group is the subject of some form of persecution in the country from which it comes, rather than another ethnic group. It would be impossible to operate a rational asylum process, requiring the immigration authorities to treat cases alike without always delving into the detail of each claim, if caseworkers were unable to make such distinctions. That would make the operation of the asylum and immigration system extremely difficult.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hear what the Minister says, but in my constituency experience of dealing with huge numbers of such applications, at the end of the day Ministers and officials make decisions on the basis of the individual concerned, and—either initially, or if pressed—provide explanations. Is it not the case that, whatever may be the starting point of a policy, decisions are and should always be made on the basis of an individual's circumstances? We cannot get away from that.

Mr. O'Brien: Certainly each asylum application is decided on its individual merits. To that extent, the hon.

Gentleman is right. The individual, however, comes with a history—a background. In the case of Kosovo, for instance, in which we operated special procedures in relation to ethnic Albanians, it was clearly relevant to determine whether an individual claiming to be an ethnic Albanian was indeed an ethnic Albanian. An ethnic Albanian coming from Kosovo rather than Albania itself might be given different treatment from an Albanian coming from Albania, or a Serb coming from Kosovo. On that basis, we had to examine not just individual circumstances, but the broader context. It was not necessary to look much further into the individual circumstances of a person identified as a Kosovan Albanian to decide how that person should be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman is right in principle: when deciding whether to grant asylum, we should consider individual cases. However, the context in which the decision is made cannot be ignored.

Mr. Cohen: I understand that the immigration service deals with nationality and ethnic origins in much of its case work, but at the heart of the Stephen Lawrence case and the subsequent inquiry lay the fact that there have been individual massive injustices caused by false stereotyping. That is what institutional racism is about. Why should the immigration and nationality service be exempt from provisions relating to institutional racism and false stereotyping when the police and many other public services are subject to those provisions? Why should an individual who is anti-Saddam Hussein be treated the same way as someone who is pro-Saddam Hussein, just because he or she comes from Iraq? It might be a false stereotype to assume that any applicant from Iraq should be turned down.

Mr. O'Brien: As we have already identified, when an asylum or immigration case is determined, the circumstances of the individual are important, as is the individual's background. I do not think that my hon. Friend and I disagree on that point. However, he appears to think that there is reason to believe that many, or at least a significant number, of the decisions taken by immigration officers are based on some sort of stereotyping or discriminatory intention. That is not my experience of the professional way in which decisions are normally taken. That is not to say that there have been no mistakes made—no public service is immune from the errors of individuals or the mendacity of a small minority—but, by and large, the immigration service bases its decisions on the proper and openly arrived at decision-making guidance issued by Ministers.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned Frances Webber. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has broad enough shoulders not to worry about criticism from that source, but he is certainly not facing both ways on the issues. He is trying to ensure that our record is that of a Government who promote a combination of the firm and fair immigration controls to which we committed ourselves in our manifesto and a strong commitment to race equality, which we have demonstrated throughout our term in office, both in the Bill and in the establishment of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
There is no question of facing two ways: our aim is to restore integrity to our asylum system so that it works for the genuine refugee, discourages those who would abuse


it or make unfounded claims and recognises the need to respect race equality. That is why we have tabled an amendment that makes a change that I am sure my hon. Friend wants. We think it is possible to do that because exemptions should be no wider than is necessary.
My hon. Friend quotes Frances Webber asking,
how…are we going to prove unlawful race discrimination…if it is not unlawful to discriminate…?
That is a very lawyerly way of putting it—of course one cannot prove something to be unlawful if it is not unlawful. However, there are circumstances in which it is proper, lawful and right to discriminate, for example, when we were helping Kosovan Albanians. There should be no disagreement about that. The lawyer quoted is placing a lawyerly concern to win—to get at the immigration service—above the need for proper decision making and justice. I, as a Minister, am concerned to ensure that just decisions are made and public policy operates properly to achieve the openly articulated aim of the Government to ensure that we have a system of immigration control that is both fair and firm.
My hon. Friend asks whether junior civil servants have the ability to take unto themselves the exemption. The answer is no: a junior civil servant has no ability to say, "I have decided that, in that case, such a course of action is no longer discriminatory," nor does a senior civil servant, or the chief immigration officer. Immigration officers will operate under the guidance issued by Ministers, which is, by and large, in the public arena. My hon. Friend will be able to ascertain the criteria by which such decisions are made and the way in which they are reached.
In no sense does the Bill create an exemption that gives a civil servant broad discretion to discriminate. Civil servants will be able to discriminate properly and lawfully only when there is a clear instruction from the Minister to do so in specific circumstances, and those circumstances are mainly in the public arena. One of the actions taken by the Government after entering office—indeed, while I was Minister with responsibility for immigration—was to ensure that the guidance on how such decisions are made was put into the public domain and so made available to immigration lawyers such as Frances Webber. There is a degree of openness from which my hon. Friend can take solace. We do not accept that any official is entitled to discriminate in a way that is unacceptable to the Government.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not dispute the issue of openness with the Minister. I hope that he will now address the question of the timetable from now on governing the exemptions provided under the legislation. However, the example he gives works both ways. The House and the country had huge sympathy for Albanian Kosovans and everything started from there. However, I know from colleagues and from discussions with the Refugee Council when I visited Kosovo that some Serbian Kosovans felt that their case was prejudged against them, even though they had no history of acts of aggression or intimidation or other anti-social activities. The very generalisation that Albanian Kosovans should be considered together and regarded favourably and that Serbian Kosovans should not is worrying to me, because I know how much grief that presumption has caused over the past couple of years.

Mr. O'Brien: We considered Albanian Kosovans differently from Serbian Kosovans not because specific

individuals might have been involved in activities that, in retrospect, they would not have been proud of, but in the light of evidence of persecution of a particular ethnic minority. Obviously, in Kosovo at that time, the issue was whether Albanians were suffering persecution, not whether Serbs were. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that point.
I recognise that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) nor the Liberal Democrats intend to frustrate control, even though that would be the effect of their amendments. The Government accept that the amendments were tabled for bona fide reasons, even though we cannot accept them. We are concerned that they would deprive us of the ability to preserve the integrity of immigration control.
The provisions in the Bill to ensure that any discrimination in the sphere of immigration and nationality is justified are quite strict. Such discrimination must be in accordance with the provisions of the various enactments, or must be authorised by Ministers who, in turn, are accountable to Parliament. Such instructions are normally in the public arena, although there might be security issues relating to specific individuals or circumstances that oblige Ministers to decide otherwise—no doubt, hon. Members can work out for themselves the circumstances in which a Minister might decide not to make such matters public.
Precisely because there have been concerns, we took the view that there should be a race monitor to ensure that the decisions made by the immigration service were made properly and subject to some public scrutiny. The race monitor will have free access to all of the IND's papers. He or she will also be able to call on the IND to provide an individual file. However, I make it very clear that the monitor should not be a surrogate appellate authority. It is not the monitor's job to examine an individual case and to make decisions on it. The monitor's job is to look at the broad array of cases and at a selection of cases and to determine whether, as a whole, immigration control is being operated within the spirit of this legislation. The race monitor will, therefore, monitor the immigration service and the IND to ensure that the legislation's spirit is being properly adhered to.
The current entry clearance monitor, who provides real accountability to Parliament, provides a very successful precedent for the role of race monitor. The entry clearance monitor will report annually to Parliament, and I know that many hon. Members pay great heed to the views that the monitor expresses. We very much hope that the race monitor will have the same type of credibility and impact, so that Ministers, too, pay great heed to what is said by him or her.
I am satisfied that we have struck the right balance, and therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead to consider withdrawing amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 3 would modify the exemption for immigration and nationality functions in clause 1, new section 19C. As I said, we have consistently made clear our view that the exemption should be no wider than is absolutely necessary to safeguard the effective operation of immigration control. We have reached the view that a refinement to the immigration exemption can be made in the interests of securing the Bill's objectives without the risk of harm to immigration control.
The amdendment is designed to remove from the scope of the immigration exemption sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 as they relate to offences under part III of that Act. Those offences include seeking to obtain leave to enter or remain by deception, facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant into the United Kingdom, and possessing false immigration documents—such as passports, visas and work permits—for use. Many of those offences are committed by our own citizens, although some may be commissioned only by those subject to immigration control.
The amendment would place the immigration service, in the investigation and prosecution of such offences, on the same legal basis as police—with whom they often participate in joint operations—in operating the Bill's provisions.
It is right that the investigation and prosecution of offences should be based on some objective evidence or intelligence, rather than on an individual's nationality or ethnic or national origin. The immigration service does not prioritise the investigation of such offences by nationality. It is also right that the immigration service and police should be subject to the same legal constraints in carrying out similar activities, often conducted together. Those constraints will not harm or hinder the administration of justice or action against those engaged in immigration fraud or human trafficking.
Immigration service functions that support the removal or deportation of individuals from the United Kingdom will, however, remain within the scope of the exemption. As I said, it is sometimes necessary to prioritise cases for removal on the basis of nationality in response to particular pressures on control or as a result of the attitude of other Governments towards accepting the return of their own nationals.
The amendment contains a justifiable refinement to the immigration exemption. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by hon. Members and by Members of another place, and we have taken action to ensure that the exemption is no wider than is necessary. I hope that the House will accept this Government amendment to new section 19C.

Mr. Hughes: When does the Minister expect new authorisations in relation to this part of the Bill to be made?

Mr. O'Brien: I cannot give a date now, but we would want to implement the provisions as soon as we possibly can. Although we would have to take account of the analysis of controls that is currently being done, we would, as I said, want to implement the provisions as soon as reasonably possible. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to let them know when we anticipate implementing them.
5.45 pm
Government amendment No. 35 provides that a finding of unlawful discrimination by the independent appellate authority in an immigration case will trigger the power of the Commission for Racial Equality to seek an injunction under section 62 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Government amendment No. 36 extends section 66 of the 1976 Act to allow the CRE to give assistance to people in immigration proceedings before the independent appellate or the special immigration appeals commission.
Government amendment No. 37 amends section 67 and will protect applicants whose visa applications are successful, but who nevertheless consider that they have been racially discriminated against by an entry clearance officer. It ensures that redress is available in the county court.
Government amendments Nos. 41 and 42 extend the Lord Chancellor's current jurisdiction under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 to make rules.
Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are technical ones to ensure that in cases in which a claim of racial discrimination has been certified as manifestly unfounded, an adjudicator is able to determine whether it was correct for the Home Secretary to issue a certificate when the claim was made and to make a decision on that certificate. A consequential amendment has also been made to the equivalent certification provisions on human rights and asylum in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
I hope that the House will accept not only these technical and consequential amendments, but the more substantive amendments that I have outlined.

Mr. Cohen: My amendment No. 1 was always a probing amendment, to express concern and to get answers, and I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given. I particularly welcomed his answers as they touched on the role of civil servants and the race monitor and on the transparency of the criteria. I am still concerned, however, about the broad exemption being granted to the service. It is too great in the case of the IND and it should have been reined in a bit more. Although I heard the Minister's comments about exemptions being no wider than necessary, I do not think that the exemption granted to the IND should be any wider than that granted to other public services.
Nevertheless, I also appreciate the full answers that the Minister has given to my questions. I also realise that the Home Secretary has broad shoulders, and that he will not be too worried about the comments of Frances Webber that I quoted.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 41, after "1999" insert—
'but excluding sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 so far as they relate to offences under Part III of that Act'.

No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 46 and 47.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 2

SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES: GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to "due" in line 6 and insert—
', in carrying out its functions, have'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 10, 24, 26 and 28.

Mr. Tipping: Government amendment No. 5 alters the wording of the new general duty on public authorities to


promote race equality to reflect better the Government's policy intention. It makes it clear that public authorities, rather than simply putting arrangements in place to have regard to the need to work towards the elimination of unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups, must have regard to that duty. Although they should of course make arrangements to meet that obligation, greater focus is placed in this amendment on the outcome rather than on the process itself. The wording follows the approach taken in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and has the support of the Commission for Racial Equality. I commend the amendment to the House.
I deal now with Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which are perhaps slighter than the preceding one. Many public authorities are already subject to various statutory duties imposed by other legislation. I cite as an example the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which subjects the Greater London Authority to a duty in relation to equality of opportunity for all people. In clause 2, the proposed new section 71(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 will allow, by order, the Secretary of State to impose on bodies that are subject to the general duty to promote racial equality specific duties aimed at ensuring their better performance of that duty.
The proposed section 71(6) in clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to make

such incidental, supplementary or consequential provision
as appropriate when, by an order under the proposed section 71(5), he amends the list of public authorities subject to the duty in schedule 1A.
We wish to have similar powers in the proposed section 71(6) in relation to orders as those made under the proposed section 71(2). That will allow the Secretary of State, when making such orders, to amend other legislation imposing duties on bodies in order to remove any overlaps on the duties. That is necessary to avoid a body becoming subject to separate but possibly conflicting duties.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 10 are technical drafting amendments. Amendment No. 24 adds a new entry to schedule 1A to bring the coverage in Scotland of certain health bodies under the general duty into line with coverage of the Bill in England and Wales. Amendment No. 26 adds regional development agencies, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the schedule, along with the London development agency which was already in it. Certain housing bodies covered by the existing section 71 duty are added by amendment No. 28 so that they remain seamlessly specified for the purpose of the new duty. That extends the scope of the bodies covered. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he moved the amendments. I understand the Government's reasons for proposing the new draft of the general statutory duty, but I would like to press him on the Government's thinking on what they expect public authorities to deliver under the statutory duty. It is important for the Government to clarify their thinking, given that we are proposing to grant the Secretary of State extensive powers by order to impose specific requirements on individual public authorities if he believes that they are failing to comply with the

general duty. That marks a significant departure from the arrangements set out in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which places a duty on every local authority to make appropriate arrangements to carry out their functions with a view to the need

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and
(b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

The 1976 Act does not give the Secretary of State the power to step in to say that a local authority is failing in that duty. However, under the Bill, central Government will be able to insist on certain actions being taken or certain codes being adhered to so that a local authority or group of local authorities complies with the Government's view of how to give effect to the general duty. That is important, partly for the parliamentary reason that the order-making power is subject only to the negative resolution procedure. It could come into effect without any debate or formal approval by this or the other House.
More important, when we judge the amendments and the definition of the statutory duty, we need to pay careful regard to the specific obligations that we wish to impose on specific public authorities as a result of what is phrased in fairly general terms in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of his thinking on that.
The precedent set by the 1976 Act shows that in the 24 years in which local councils have been under a statutory duty, most have used the requirement in section 71 to good effect in serving their local communities. That is how I would like things to continue.
However, certain local authorities have hit the headlines because they have interpreted the duty in the 1976 Act in a way that many people have found outrageous and not in accord with their expectations of their local council. In the past couple of weeks, the report of the Runnymede Trust's commission, which was chaired by Lord Parekh, has been published. Although I do not disagree with everything in the report, it calls for a much greater degree of central Government interference in promoting good relations than I believe to be justified.
We are told by the media that Home Office Ministers had intended to welcome the report with open arms and to announce several specific measures to give effect to some of its recommendations. It is not unfair to ask the Minister what he expects local councils and other public authorities to do that they are not doing already. For example, do the Government intend to impose on all public authorities the more onerous requirements of ethnic monitoring that the Runnymede Trust's report recommends?
To take things to the extreme, do the Government foresee that they might want to implement what I would regard as one of the daftest recommendations in the report—namely, that museums and art galleries whose exhibitions do not comply with the Government's idea of what promotes racial equality should lose some of their funding? The report is explicit in that it recommends:
Organisations funded by public bodies should lose some of their funding if they do not make changes in their staff and governance and do not demonstrably make their programmes and activities more inclusive.
The amendments and clause 2 will give the Home Secretary or his colleagues in the Cabinet the power by an order, which is subject only to the negative resolution


procedure, to instruct a local authority museum or art gallery to change its way of doing things. If it does not do what he prescribes, it will stand to lose its grant.
In our previous debates, the Minister has also shown himself to be a reasonable chap who wishes to argue constructively, so I hope that he will be able to reassure me that my fears are misplaced. Given the general terms in which the statutory duty is defined in legislation, it is only fair to ask the Government to be more specific about the practical measures that they wish authorities to undertake or that they will seek to impose on them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome clause 2, to which the Minister has introduced further amendments today. We have argued for it in the House of Lords and in Committee. We are very keen to have this new development in race relations legislation which will oblige authorities to do two things. They will have to have regard—the Minister has suggested a change of words, but keeping the same principle—to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. It is not a matter of waiting for the court case but of dealing with matters in advance and being proactive.
Secondly, authorities will have to promote equality of opportunity and good relations. Those are good things, and it is good that these provisions are in the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Minister are also welcome; they seem to be entirely consistent.
6 pm
The comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) included two fair points, to which the Minister may be planning to respond. First, the hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to amplify in what way the Government would expect, and people should expect, the legislation to be enacted. Secondly, he alluded to the report sponsored by the Runnymede Trust, the "Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain". I was going to say a word about it on Third Reading, but it seems logical to do so now.
It would be helpful if the Government indicated how they will respond to the list of proposals in the report. I was away on the day it was released, but I realised that the content of the report got hijacked by, clouded by and coloured by the proposal on what we call the country and getting rid of the word "Britain". That was not a key proposal, as I understand it, but just one of the things in the report.
There are none the less a significant number of proposals in the report, including a list of points for immediate action. I only have the report's summary here, but I know that the Government have many of the items, both general and specific, on their agenda. I refer to introducing a single equality act, setting up a human rights commission and legislating to prohibit direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief—all matters to which the Government have at some time said they are committed.
I hope that the Minister will respond in general terms to the request about how the Government propose to respond to the report. I hope that once the initial wave of comment has died down, there will be a positive and considered response to each proposal. The report appears

to be on all fours with the attempts by many people to have the promotion of good race relations and equal opportunity as part of the duty of those of us in public service and in public life.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the general support from the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The point of difference between them was the difference in emphasis and concentration on the Runnymede Trust's report which has been published fairly recently and has led to some controversy.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right to say that the focus had been on one section of the report—the notion of Britishness. The Home Secretary has made his position on that clear. He has also made his position, and that of the Government, clear on the Runnymede Trust's report. We welcome the report; it contains many recommendations that can be built on. There are also recommendations that go against the grain of what the Government are doing. Suffice it to say that we generally welcome the report, are working on its propositions and intend to come forward with proposals to take the debate further.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury made two important points. He said that this was a very important subject, and indeed it is. The duty to promote is the key to the Bill, so it is important to get these provisions right. Secondly, he talked strongly and positively about local authorities, and I agree with him on that. Politicians are not very good at praising success; neither are Governments, of whichever colour. Local authorities, as has already been said, are very successful. We need to use our regulatory framework; bodies such as Ofsted and the Audit Commission, instead of always identifying weakness, should identify and promote success. Successful local authorities should be used as vehicles to drive change forward.
As the hon. Gentleman said, many local authorities have a good deal of which to be proud. There have been occasional mishaps when local authorities may have been over-zealous in their approach. However, concentrating on the best and on bringing everyone up to the standard of the best is the right approach.
I was asked directly how the Government intend to proceed. As I said earlier, we are using as our model the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The phrasing is almost the same. The hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters, knows that in Northern Ireland we are consulting on how to do this. Public authorities do not come in one shape or size. There are different degrees of public authority. The hon. Gentleman talked earlier of vicars in the Church of England pursuing a public role. That public role is only a small proportion of their work. It is important that we consult and that we are proportionate in our approach and do not bring forward a set of measures that will not work for organisations of different size and complexity.
The hon. Gentleman asked me directly what we would be looking at and looking for. He used local authorities as his example, so perhaps I can too. It is important that local authorities introduce policies that meet the needs of the entire community, so it is important to consult the entire community about how best to do that. In a social services department, areas in which policy will need to


have some focus would be the kind of meals on wheels that are supplied to the entire community, and the variety of choice that there is. Similarly, the care of people from a black and Asian background in residential accommodation is a difficult and complex area. It will be important for local authorities to consult about that, introduce policies and have ways of measuring those policies to ensure that people from a black and Asian background really are taking up meals on wheels and, if not—as is often the case these days—why not. It is important for local authorities to take that into account in relation to social policies.
It is also important for local authorities to follow this approach in relation to their employment policies. Some do, very satisfactorily, but some do not. If public authorities claim to be equal opportunities employers, as many do, but do not appear to deliver when one considers their work force, it is important that local authorities consult all the community and have policies that are acceptable to all the community on the way in which staff are advertised for and recruited. They should ensure that if people from any ethnic background are not represented and there appear to be handicaps in the way of that happening, they should introduce policies to resolve the matter.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he enjoyed working with me. I enjoy working with him, and I have enjoyed doing so on this Bill. These amendments are about ensuring that we set up mechanisms for public authorities, including local authorities, to have in place policies that meet the needs of the black and Asian community and to measure them.
In closing, let me simply say that the range of measures on which consultation will take place depends on the size and complexity of the public authority. As I said earlier, the Home Office is very clear that this is not a "one approach fits all" method. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
'(b) may make different provision for different purposes.'.

No. 7, in page 4, line 25, leave out "which" and insert "who".

No. 8, in page 4, line 27, after "subsection" insert "(2) or".

No. 9, in page 4, line 46, leave out—
'section 74 so far as it applies'
and insert—
'sections 71(6) and 74 so far as they apply'.

No. 10, in page 5, line 3, leave out "which" and insert "who".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 3

CERTAIN APPOINTMENT FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYMENT FIELD

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 3, leave out "or refused".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 32.

Mr. Tipping: Clause 3 already makes provision in relation to the coverage of public appointments,

dignities and honours under the Race Relations Act 1976. These amendments will improve the current provision in the Bill in two ways. First, they will make improvements to the drafting of the provision. More substantively, they will bring within the scope of the provision a substantial new area—that of discrimination involving the terms and conditions of appointments or the termination of the appointment.
I shall deal with the latter, more substantive matter first. I note that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is nodding. I think that he can take pride in this matter, which he pursued in Committee. We gave an undertaking to reflect on it, and I hope that we have met his needs to a large extent. The Government propose to extend the protection against discrimination in relation to appointments that is provided under section 76 of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended under the Bill. It should cover discrimination not only in the arrangements for determining who should be appointed, but in the terms and conditions of the appointment, in the termination of the appointment or in subjecting the appointee to any other detriment.
Thus, overall, it will be unlawful for a Minister or Department to discriminate in relation to the terms of the appointment; the way the appointee is afforded access to opportunities for promotion, transfer, training or any other benefits, facilities or services; the refusal or omission to afford access to such things; the termination of the appointment; or subjecting the appointee to any other detriment. Discrimination against appointees and potential appointees will be unlawful in those circumstances where it is unlawful against employees under section 4(2) of the Race Relations Act, thereby improving the protection afforded to appointees by our race discrimination legislation.
Some drafting improvements have also been made to those provisions. The position for negative recommendations and refusals, including deliberate omissions, is now set out separately, making it clearer that they are covered by the provisions, as are positive recommendations and approvals.
The drafting for the extension of the Act to appointments, dignities and honours made on the recommendation or approval of Ministers or Departments has been brought more into line with the drafting of the existing provision in section 76(2) of the Act for appointments made by Ministers or Departments. The effect is to clarify the application of the provision, making it clear that a Minister or Department, in making recommendations or approvals, should do nothing that would be unlawful under the Act—as though the appointee were an employee, and the Crown the employer. It has been made clear that the sanctions provided under sections 53(2) to 53(4) are the only sanctions on the appointments, conferments and other acts covered by section 76.
The opportunity has been taken to introduce provisions to ensure that not only the recommendations and approvals of Ministers and Departments in relation to life peerages but those of bodies set up by Ministers for that purpose are covered by the provisions. The Committee spent some time considering this complex matter and we


have listened to its views. I hope that the amendments represent improvements, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Government for responding to our concerns. They do not represent three-star, flashing light, huge legislative matters. I do not pretend that they are the central part of the Government's programme.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman underestimates his powers.

Mr. Hughes: Even on our shopping list, they are not matters that we would have died for in Committee. None the less, the Government have tried to bring within the same system appointments or selections under the slightly anomalous routes by which people are given honours. As far as I and those who advise me have been able to work out, our concerns have been met. A minor caveat remains in that I am not sure that the Minister can be absolutely certain that the small print is perfect. However, I am pleased that the Bill has been improved; it will become more consistent legislation. I am grateful to those behind the scenes who have helped to make that happen.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 8, line 7, leave out first "the" and insert "a".

No. 13, in page 8, line 9, leave out "or refused".

No. 14, in page 8, line 11, leave out from "giving" to end of line 18 and insert—
'the approval, and in making the arrangements for determining who should be recommended or approved, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful under section 4 if the recommendation or approval were an offer of employment and the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.

(6) Subsections (3) to (5) do not apply in relation to the making of negative recommendations.

(6A) Subsection (6C) applies to—

(a) any negative recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or any refusal to make a recommendation by such a Minister or department, in relation to an appointment to an office or post where section 4 does not apply in relation to the appointment, and
(b) any approval refused by such a Minister or department in relation to any such appointment.

(6B) Subsection (6C) also applies to—

(a) any negative recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or any refusal to make a recommendation by such a Minister or department, in relation to a conferment by the Crown of a dignity or honour; and
(b) any approval refused by such a Minister or department in relation to any such conferment.

(6C) In making a negative recommendation or in refusing to make a recommendation or give an approval, and in making the arrangements for determining, whether to make such a recommendation or refusal, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful

under section 4 if the recommendation or refusal were a refusal to offer the person concerned employment and the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.

(6D) Subsection (6E) applies in relation to any appointment to an office or post where section 4 does not apply and—

(a) the appointment is made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or
(b) the office or post is an office or post in relation to which a Minister of the Crown or government department has made a recommendation (other than a negative recommendation) or given an approval.

(6E) A Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act in connection with—

(a) the terms of the appointment;
(b) access for the person appointed to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services; or
(c) the termination of the appointment, or subjecting the person appointed to any other detriment;

which would be unlawful under section 4 if the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.'.

No. 15, in page 8, line 21, after "(5)" insert—
', subsection (6C) or, in relation to an appointment falling within subsection (6D)(b), subsection (6E)'.

No. 16, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) The sanctions provided by virtue of the operation of section 53(2) to (4) in relation to this section shall be the only sanctions under this Act in relation to appointments, conferments and other acts to which this section applies.'.

No. 17, in page 8, line 27, leave out from first "to" to end of line 28 and insert—
'refusal include references to deliberate omission;'.

No. 18, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
'and
() references to Ministers of the Crown and government departments so far as they relate to the making of a recommendation or a refusal to make a recommendation, or the giving or refusal of an approval, in relation to a conferment of a peerage for life under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 include references to any body established by a Minister of the Crown to make such a recommendation to the Prime Minister or to determine whether to give such an approval.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 5

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 45, leave out "or".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20, 23, 25, 34 and 49.

Mr. Tipping: These are technical and drafting amendments, but I hope that they are transparent. I intend to speak to them only briefly.
Amendment Nos. 19 and 20 are designed to ensure that the definition of criminal investigation applies, in the different circumstances that arise in Scotland, to the same extent as it does in England and Wales. In Scotland, authorities such as the vehicle inspectorate or the Health and Safety Executive have investigatory powers, but no power to conduct prosecutions. The definition of a criminal investigation at paragraph (b) of section 57(4B),


as inserted under clause 5, therefore does not cover investigations carried out by such bodies; nor does the definition at paragraph (a) of section 57(4B), since they will not necessarily always have a duty to conduct their investigations. The amendments are therefore needed to ensure that the definition of criminal investigations covers investigations carried out by such bodies in Scotland.
Under amendments Nos. 23 and 25, we propose to make minor technical amendments to two Scottish entries in schedule 1A, which lists specified public bodies for the purpose of the new duty to promote race equality.
Amendment No. 49 repeals a provision that provides for Scottish Homes to be subject to the existing duty to promote race equality under section 71. That duty will be made redundant by the new duty under the Bill, which will apply to Scottish Homes by virtue of amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 34 will allow an enforcement notice served by the Commission for Racial Equality in respect of an immigration decision to be appealed in the civil courts. That will not restrict the commission's powers; it will simply place immigration decisions on the same footing as other areas of decision making under section 59 of the Race Relations Act 1976. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 11, line 3, after "conduct;" insert "or
(c) any investigation which is conducted by a person in carrying out functions to which section 19B applies and which in the circumstances may lead to a decision by that person to make a report to the procurator fiscal for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether criminal proceedings should be instituted;'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 10

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 14, line 35, leave out "Schedules 1" and insert "Schedules 2".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 1

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 16, line 2, leave out Schedule 1.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 2

BODIES AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 19, line 29, leave out "established" and insert "constituted".

No. 24, in page 19, line 30, at end insert—
'. A Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of that Act.'.

No. 25, in page 20, line 30, leave out—
'constituted under section 62A or 62B'
and insert—
'within the meaning of section 235(1)'.

No. 26, in page 21, line 6, at end insert—

'. A regional development agency established under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (other than the London Development Agency).
. Scottish Enterprise and Highland and Islands Enterprise, established under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 13, at end insert—
'Other educational bodies
. Governing bodies of—

(a) educational establishments maintained by local education authorities;
(b) institutions within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992); or
(c) institutions within the higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Act of 1992).

. The managers of a grant-aided school (within the meaning of section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980).
. The managers of a central institution (within the meaning of section 135 of the Act of 1980).
. The board of management of a self-governing school (within the meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989).
. The board of management of a college of further education (within the meaning of section 36(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992).
. The governing body of an institution within the higher education sector (within the meaning of Part II of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 29 to 31, 33, 43, 46 to 48 and 50 to 53.

Mr. Tipping: The amendments add public sector educational bodies to the list of specified bodies for the purpose of the duty to promote race equality in clause 2. They also provide for a number of consequential amendments: in particular, the duty on educational bodies currently at section 19 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which is a more limited duty than the new duty, is being repealed. I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who I know is concerned that disproportionate duties should not be imposed on schools and school governors.
One aspect of the amendments which I should explain for the avoidance of doubt is the apparent absence from the list of local education authorities—and in Scotland, education authorities. Those authorities are covered by the duty, but there is no need to make a specific reference to them, because the existing references to local authorities in the schedule cover local authorities in all their capacities, including their education capacity.
The amendments also take the opportunity to remove the requirement in the 1976 Act for a two-month period to elapse before proceedings against education bodies can be progressed through the courts. The original purpose was to provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to investigate the case and direct the bodies against which the discrimination case was being brought, but the Government now agree with the Commission for Racial


Equality, which recommended the change in its third review of the Act, as the delay is thought to be unnecessary.
The amendment relating to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 amends schedules 4 and 5 of that Act, which require school organisation committees to have regard to the obligations placed on local education authorities and school governors in part III of the Race Relations Act 1976. The amendment requires school organisation committees also to have regard to the obligations placed on those bodies by clause 2 of the Bill.
The amendments ensure that educational bodies are subject to the duty to promote racial equality, as other public authorities are. That makes them important, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Lidington: No one—least of all me—would quarrel with the proposition that it should be part of the duty of any responsible educational institution to help to promote good race relations and oppose racial discrimination. It would be hard to find a head teacher who would say that he or she was not already engaged in trying to give effect to that aspiration.
I want to flag up one or two concerns. Clause 2 and schedule 2 give the Government new powers to impose specific duties on public authorities—including, when Government amendment No. 27 is made, the state sector of education—if those impositions are necessary in order to make those bodies comply with their duty to promote good race relations. Having heard his response to my earlier comments on this theme, I emphasise to the Minister that it is of the utmost importance that there is thorough consultation with practitioners in the education sector.
We all want schools and colleges to play their part in building a society in which the various ethnic communities respect one another, but it is important to do that without prejudice to what is surely the prime duty of schools—to promote high standards of achievement for all pupils, regardless of ethnic background.
I refer again to the recommendations of the Runnymede Trust report. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that most of the previous debate on that report concerned its references to the notion of Britishness, but my criticism of it is more that its conclusions place too much faith in the beneficent power of Government intervention.
The Parekh committee gave us a list of specific proposals concerning educational institutions. There is a proposal that the national authorities should require local education authorities and schools to keep substantially more detailed and helpful statistics on ethnicity than hitherto. The committee also recommended that all higher education institutions should review and improve their arrangements for encouraging access for students from the ethnic minorities—again, a principle with which no one in the House would quarrel, but the extent to which central Government should seek to impose a specific view of how that objective should be attained is a matter for debate.
The Parekh committee recommended that schools and colleges alike should review their courses and syllabuses with a view to making them culturally more inclusive

"wherever appropriate". Of course, the devil is in that phrase, different people's interpretation of which may vary tremendously.
The Minister's consultation with schools and colleges should be serious and thorough, and he should treat with appropriate scepticism the pressures that will undoubtedly be brought to bear on him constantly to have new codes, duties and guidelines handed down from Whitehall to individual schools and colleges. What I said earlier in respect of local authorities is the key to identifying examples of best practice and encouraging their wider dissemination. That, rather than a centralised, prescriptive approach, will work best.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I had a word with the Minister for School Standards the other day and put to her the concern felt by many heads and deputy heads about the proliferation of paperwork. She assured me that the Government were on target to deliver reductions in paperwork. I think she said that there would be a third fewer bits of paper this year and only half as many next year. That is absolutely the right principle. I am the chair of governors of a primary school and I know that that is right, but if, as a result of this Bill, there has to be any more paperwork, let us ensure that there is as little as possible; that it is sent by non-paper means whenever possible; and that bits of paper that have to be sent are sent at the same time as other bits of paper, in as few bundles a year as possible.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who both acknowledged that there is already good practice in many schools. It is important to build on that good practice so that the standards of the less good reach those of the best.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke specifically about the need to consult practitioners. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that practitioners' views are heard.
I heard what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. Schoolteachers say to me, too, "Don't send us paperwork—send us pound notes." They want investment in education in real terms, to make a difference. It is no secret that the current Secretary of State has taken a close interest in this part of the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, he is determined that the obligations—the rules from the center—diminish, and keen that any new obligations that are put on schools are proportionate and that, again, there will be consultation on those matters.
6.30 pm
The good practice at the moment springs in part from the fact that there is already an obligation on schools under sections 17 and 18 of the Race Relations Act. Schools are liable to challenge. The Bill brings forward a new duty—the duty to promote. Again, one of the issues that one would need to look at is the steps, say, that a small village school with perhaps a head teacher and one other teacher might want to take, as against a large comprehensive school with 100 teachers on its staff. Again, it is important that we get that right, that we do


not make unrealistic objections and place unrealistic demands on the attitude of schools. We think that, taken carefully, thoughtfully and, most important, practically, the Bill can make a real difference to schools. Again,
I am grateful for Opposition Members' support.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 21, line 13, at end insert—

'Other housing bodies

. The Housing Corporation.
. Scottish Homes.
. A housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 3

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 21, line 26, at end insert—
' In section 17 of the 1976 Act (prohibition on discrimination by certain education bodies), in the Table—

(a) in paragraph 7 for "73(c) or (d)" there is substituted "73(d)"; and
(b) after paragraph 7 there is inserted—

"7AA. A grant-aided school, The managers of the school."

within the meaning of section

135 of the Education (Scotland)

Act 1980.

No. 30, in page 21, line 26, at end insert—
' In section 27(1) of the 1976 Act (extent of Part III) for "19" there is substituted "18D".'.

No. 31, in page 21, line 27, leave out—
'the 1976 Act (extent of Part III)'
and insert "that Act".

No. 32, in page 21, line 38, after "76(5)" insert—
'or (6C) or by virtue of section 76(6D)(b) and (6E)'.

No. 33, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
' In section 57(5) of that Act (claims under Part III in relation to certain educational bodies)—

(a) for the words "section 19(1)" there is substituted "subsection (5A)"; and
(b) the words from "and" to the end of the subsection are omitted.

. After section 57(5) of that Act there is inserted—
(5A) This subsection applies to—

(a) local education authorities in England and Wales;
(b) education authorities in Scotland; and
(c) any body which is a responsible body in relation to an establishment falling within paragraph 3, 3B or 7B of the table in section 17." '.

No. 34, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
' In section 59(1)(b) of that Act (appeal against non-discrimination notice) after "the court" there is inserted "(ignoring section 57A)".'.

No. 35, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
' In section 62(1) of that Act (persistent discrimination) after "or" at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted—
(ba) a finding under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that he has done an act which was unlawful by virtue of section 19B; or"'.

No. 36, in page 22, line 1, at end insert—
' After section 66(7) of that Act (assistance by Commission) there is added—
(8) This section (except for subsection (4)) applies to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so far as they relate to acts which may be unlawful by virtue of section 19B as it applies to proceedings or prospective proceedings under this Act.
(9) In this section as it applies by virtue of subsection (8) "rules and regulations" means—

(a) in relation to proceedings under the Act of 1997, rules tinder section 5 or 8 of that Act;
(b) in relation to proceedings under Part IV of the Act of 1999, rules under paragraph 3 or 4 of Schedule 4 to that Act."'.

No. 37, in page 22, line 1, at end insert—
' After section 67(3) of that Act (extension of jurisdiction of county courts and sheriff courts) there is inserted—
(3A) A designated county court or a sheriff court shall have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under this Act with respect to an act done outside the United Kingdom where section 19B applies in relation to such an act by virtue of section 27(1A)." '.

No. 38, in page 22, line 13, leave out "75(1)" and insert "75(2)".

No. 39, in page 22, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
' "(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (2B).
(2B) Sections 19B to 19E, sections 71 to 71E (including Schedule 1A) and section 76 bind the Crown; and the other provisions of this Act so far as they relate to those provisions shall be construed accordingly (including, in particular, references to employment in Part IV)." '.

No. 40, in page 22, line 17, after "Act" insert "—


(a) for "and (2)" there is substituted "to (2B)"; and
(b)".

No. 41, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
'. In section 5 of that Act (procedure in relation to jurisdiction under section 2 of that Act etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a) after "2" there is inserted "or 2A";
(b) in subsection (1)(b) for "that section" there is substituted "section 2 or 2A above"; and
(c) in subsection (2) after "2" there is inserted "or 2A".'.

No. 42, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
' In Schedule 2 to that Act (appeals: supplementary)—

(a) in paragraph 4 after "2" there is inserted "or 2A"; and
(b) in paragraphs 6 and 7 after "2" there is inserted "and 2A".'.

No. 43, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—'

'School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)

. In paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 4 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (school organisation committees to have regard to certain obligations owed by local education authorities and governing bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976) after "Part III" there shall be inserted "or section 71".

. In paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1998 (adjudicators to have regard to certain obligations owed by local education authorities and governing bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976) after "Part III" there shall be inserted "or section 71".

No. 44, in page 23, line 42, after "(appeals)," insert—
'in paragraph 9(2) for the words "that the claim is one to which this paragraph applies" there is substituted "with the opinion expressed in the Secretary of State'

s certificate".
. In that Schedule to that Act,'.

No. 45, in page 24, line 7, leave out from beginning to "paragraph 22" and insert—
'with the opinion expressed in the Secretary of State's certificate,'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 24, line 13, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 19.



Section 19ZA.



In section 57(5), the words from "and" to the end of the subsection.



Section 58(6).



In section 68, subsection (2)(b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and, in subsection (3), the words "or, as the case may be, eight" and "or (b)".'.

No. 47, in page 24, line 17, column 3, at end insert—


'1980 c. 44.
Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
In Schedule 4, paragraph 14.'.

No. 48, in page 24, line 26, column 3, at end insert—


'1988 c. 40.
Education Reform Act 1988.
In Schedule 12, paragraphs 19 and 79.'.

No. 49, in page 24, line 26, column 3, at end insert—


'1988 c. 43.
Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
Section 2(11).'.

No. 50, in page 24, line 27, column 3, at end insert—


'1989 c. 39.
Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act. 1989.
In Schedule 10, paragraph 6(3).


1992 c. 13.
Further and Higher Education Act 1992.,
In Schedule 8, paragraph 88.


1992 c. 37.
Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.
In Schedule 9, paragraph 5(4).,'.

No. 51, in page 24, line 31, column 3, at end insert—


'1994 c. 30.
Education Act 1994.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 6(4).'.

No. 52, in page 24, line 38, column 3, at end insert—


'1996 c. 56.
Education Act 1996.
In Schedule 37, paragraph 42 and, in paragraph 117(4), paragraph (b) and the
word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

No. 53, in page 24, line 46, column 3, at end insert—


'2000 c. 21.
Learning and Skills Act 2000.
In Schedule 9, paragraph 10.'.

—[Mr. Touhig.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is a major milestone on the road towards race equality. It is the first significant amendment to the Race Relations Act in almost a quarter of a century. It is a necessary and important part of the legislative and administrative framework that the Government are creating to put public authorities where they should be: at the forefront, leading by example on race equality issues.
The Bill has its origins in the murder of the teenager Stephen Lawrence, a tragic and untimely death compounded by the failure of public services to respond to the needs of the victim and his family—a failure to provide a response that most would expect if faced with similar circumstances; indeed, a response most of us can take for granted.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry report recommended that race relations legislation should apply to the police and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for the actions of their officers. The Government accepted that recommendation and, in doing so, promised to extend the law not only to the police, but to other public authorities. That approach is consistent with the inquiry's finding that the problem of inequality in public authorities and of inequality in their provision of services to the public is not confined to the police. It is a problem in many other public institutions. We as a community and society must address that.
The Bill, which today we will send back to another place, will outlaw discrimination in public functions, with very limited and justifiable exceptions. Moreover, it will place a duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality—to avoid discrimination before it occurs.
The House should be particularly proud of the Bill. In it, we are sending a clear message to public authorities about the standards that we expect of them—standards that are being given the full force of the law as recommended by the inquiry. We are saying that public authorities must treat all British citizens equally. regardless of their race or the colour of their skin. Many ethnic minorities are proud to describe themselves as black British, Asian British, Chinese British or just plain British.
The Government want equal treatment for ethnic minorities to be reflected in employment practices, in policy development and in the implementation and provision of services. We as a nation cannot afford to waste talent. We need all our communities to be able to realise their potential free from bigotry, racial prejudice or


downright ignorance. That will help to achieve the goal, building a strong inclusive society and a successful multiracial society.
The Bill has been greatly improved during its passage through the House and, indeed, through another place. Government commitments in another place have been delivered in the Commons. We introduced many amendments that have been accepted by the House through constructive and helpful scrutiny. We have included indirect discrimination in the Bill; defined public authorities widely for the purpose of outlawing discrimination; and provided for a positive duty for public authorities to promote race equality.
The contribution of hon. Members throughout the House to the work in Committee deserves particular mention. I want to take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to the constructive approach of the representatives of both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. Without tempting fate, I think that we had a model Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for their contributions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, for his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig)—the Whip on the Committee—and the members of the Committee themselves, together with those who chaired it.
I do not normally name officials who deal with Bills, particularly controversial Bills—they might not thank me for it—but the Bill has had widespread support in the House. Callton Young and his team of officials deserve special thanks for the tremendous job they have done in preparing the Bill. The benefits of the Bill will be benefits that their efforts have brought about.
The consideration of the Bill by this House means that it should go back to another place in good shape. I, for one, look forward to seeing its effects when we get it into law, ensuring that we create the successful multiracial society that the House wants: then we can all look back and feel proud that we have been associated with the Bill. I commend it to the House.

6.36

Mr. Lidington: I unreservedly support the Bill's objectives and hope that it will in practice have the beneficial impact that the Government believe it will.
It is important that, when we consider the Bill's impact, we are prepared to remind ourselves of two things. First, it is not just through Acts of Parliament, legislation, rules and regulations that we will build a successful multiracial society. As I said on Second Reading, legislation has a part to play. As one looks at the current state of the law, it is difficult to argue, if one believes that there should be laws against racial discrimination, that we should have a law that includes the private sector and part of the public sector, but excludes an ill-defined, indeterminate part of the public sector in the way that the 1976 Act does. However, it is in the acts, the decisions, the growing together of individuals, families and communities throughout this country that we will see the creation of a tolerant society that accepts people of different ethnic backgrounds and that appreciates the contribution that people of different ethnic communities bring.
Secondly, we need to be aware, when we think about the Bill's impact and consider how future Ministers should implement the powers that it gives them, of the

complexity of community relations. Last week's report from the Office for Standards in Education reminded us of that. It pointed out, rightly, the under-achievement of far too many black boys in schools, but it pointed out, too, that pupils from other ethnic minorities, particularly from some of the British Asian minorities, are achieving very high standards, securing good results at public examinations and good places at universities and colleges. We need to look at those problems in all their complexity. So much will depend on how the legislation is enforced and interpreted.
On Second Reading and in Committee we spent a great deal of time debating the Bill's impact on the police. More than once I voiced the concerns that had been expressed to me by serving police officers that the Bill could, albeit unintentionally, inhibit their ability to deal effectively with crime, especially street crime. In London, where many police forces have stopped using their powers to stop and search, there has been a significant rise in street crime in the past 12 months.
During our earlier proceedings, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), repeatedly assured me that there was no reason for responsible police officers to be fearful. The Government's consistent view has been that, provided that a police officer complies with the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that any deployment of officers or any targeting of particular crimes or particular villains could be justified objectively in terms of preventing or reducing crime, there should be no problems under race relations legislation. I welcome those assurances, and provided that they are borne out in reality once the Bill is on the statute book, I promise the Minister that I will be the first to cheer.
We have a real problem of mistrust of our police among far too many young British blacks and Asians. If the Bill will help to ease that tension and build confidence and trust, it will be welcome. Another real problem is that police officers in London and elsewhere feel that they are under enormous pressure, with near-impossible expectations being laid upon them. I pay tribute to the representative organizations—the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales and the Association of Chief Police Officers—for the way in which they have sought to work with Ministers on the detail of the legislation. They have given a great deal of thought to how they can change and develop best practice within the police service so that they can effectively fight and reduce crime and, at the same time, help to rebuild trust and confidence in their service among young people from ethnic communities, as that is sorely needed.
Earlier in the debate, I expressed my concerns that we should avoid a culture of litigation and compensation and I was grateful for the assurances, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, that the Government would consult closely with affected organisations before making specific proposals on the enforcement of the general duty.
Hon. Members from all three parties who have participated in debates on the Bill have found them constructive and good-tempered. There will be occasions when we shall continue to disagree as we approach the subject from different political and philosophical perspectives, but I believe that we are united in our


commitment to build a successful multiracial society in the United Kingdom. I remain an optimist about our chances of doing just that.
The Bill was triggered by Sir William Macpherson's report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the appalling failure of the investigation into that crime. In the past two years, there has been a great deal of at times ill-tempered debate about race relations, policing and crime. I was heartened when I saw this week's edition of The Voice. I confess that it is not always my regular reading, nor is it probably a publication that looks for compliments from Conservative spokesmen. However, I felt that the editorial, in accepting that young black men are responsible for a great deal of street robbery in London, just as young white men are responsible for most violence that does not involve robbery and middle-class white men tend to be responsible for most fraud, took the debate about the relationship between race relations, policing and crime onto a different, more mature level, from which together, as a community, we can address the issues seriously.
I wish the Bill well. I hope that the fears that I have expressed during our debates are misplaced and I look forward to seeing what transpires when it reaches the statute book.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the Minister and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) I am pleased and proud to be part of the process of bringing the Bill very near to becoming legislation. I did not want to interrupt the Minister, but if he has time at the end of the debate, perhaps he will let us know when he anticipates orders will be laid to bring the Bill into force, provided that it gets through the other place and receives Royal Assent in November. That is a matter for the Government and I would encourage the Minister—and through him, the Home Secretary—to lay the orders so that the Bill comes into force this year, for reasons that I shall turn to in a moment.
As the Minister said, the Bill does two hugely important things. It has taken nearly 25 years for the original and very worthwhile race relations legislation, introduced by the then Labour Government, to be updated in this way. It takes the duty not to discriminate across the public sector and adds the duty that we discussed earlier to take proactive steps to promote good race relations and equality of opportunity and eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. Those are hugely important measures.
I share the Minister's view that it would be a model Bill for people who study politics. It had goodwill from the beginning although, unusually, it started in the House of Lords. There were good, robust debates. Many amendments were tabled—there were defeats and successes—and it was amended significantly in both Houses, resulting in a Bill that we are all much more satisfied with than we were at the beginning. Yet, as the Minister said, it has received almost no coverage in the parliamentary press or elsewhere.
Like others present in the Chamber, I am a London Member. I represent a constituency in south-east London. I trained there as a youth leader and have lived in south

London since my student days. The Bill matters a lot to mixed-race communities such as ours which comprise all sorts of different backgrounds, cultures, faiths and traditions. It matters a lot that they can trust the public services and that the public services can trust them. If we are to have a society in which black and Asian people and people of different faiths, colours, creeds and backgrounds can become Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers, leaders of industry, head teachers of schools, chancellors of universities and Speakers of the House of Commons, we must start by inculcating and providing the proper public authority responsibilities that are in the Bill.
I will not dwell on the one or two disputes that remain between ourselves and the Government, but we hope that some of those will be taken up. A set of equality issues is still to be taken on, including religious equality issues about which some faiths understandably have strong feelings. There is more work to be done. I am not complacent, and I know that the Minister is not complacent. I wish to thank the Minister and his colleagues, particularly the team of civil servants which I know included somebody seconded from another Department to lead the team. I also pay tribute to colleagues, both here and at the other end of the building, who have worked hard.
Expressly, I want to pay tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence, who made their tragedy something that will leave a legacy that will probably be more valuable than they could ever have imagined. Those who have been privileged to meet them, and those of us who sat in the inquiry, know that the Bill is probably one of the most valuable things that that terrible trauma in Eltham can have produced—legislation to make our society a fairer and less discriminatory place.
I pay tribute to the inquiry, to Sir William Macpherson and to his assessors, who were there day after day and, in the end, were clear about what needed to be done. I pay tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality, which keeps us up to the mark all the time; I wish its new chief executive and director well. I thank people such as Richard Jarman and Barbara Cohen, who serve us well. I pay tribute also to a researcher of mine, Simon Hunt, who has now left for better-paid employment at the Greater London Authority. He did all the work on this Bill until, literally, a couple of weeks ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)—who has just arrived—served with me on the Committee. He would have been with me today had travel been easier, and I thank him for his support.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the commencement order. We must undertake consultation in relation to the immigration function. We are anxious to move on, but the consultation will need time. All I can say to him, in the words of Martin Luther King, is "How long? Not long."

Mr. Hughes: That is an assurance and I know of the Government's commitment to get this Bill on to the statute book.
In one of the idle moments that we occasionally have in this place, I checked some figures. We have had 43 Government Bills in this Session, 28 of which have so far been enacted. We have had 12 Home Office Bills;


four have been enacted, one withdrawn and one defeated. There are six still to finish, including this one. In the end, this one may be as significant as any of the others. I hope that, either this year or very early next year, this Bill will become law. We can then start as we mean to go on in a much fairer Britain for people of all backgrounds. That would be a tribute to Stephen Lawrence.

Ms Oona King: I join all colleagues in welcoming a momentous leap forward in protection from race discrimination. The Bill embodies the implementation of the Government's commitment in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry to extend the Race Relations Act 1976. I am particularly pleased because it underpins the right of all British citizens to receive not just equal treatment, but fairer access to services.
In a diverse society—particularly in constituencies such as mine—good race relations means protecting the civil liberties of all members of society. This is highlighted by the fluid nature of the situation regarding ethnic minorities, and by the term itself. After all, in Tower Hamlets we must consider that, in some areas, the ethnic minority is the white community. That shows clearly that it is in the interests of all British people, black and white, to ensure that we have robust legislation protecting us all from racial discrimination.
Having said that, my constituency clearly illustrates that black and Asian people suffer the greatest burden of direct and indirect discrimination. The most important provisions of the Bill are, first, to make it unlawful for public authorities to discriminate on grounds of race and, secondly, to impose a duty to promote equality on public authorities. Taken together, those measures represent a major breakthrough in anti-discrimination legislation on which the Government must be congratulated.
I particularly want to thank the Government for their acceptance that tackling indirect and institutional discrimination is critical if the Bill is to offer serious protection. There has been a controversial debate in Britain about the validity of this approach and about tackling institutional racism. People have asked where we will end up if we start here. They say that it may be a slippery slope. I hope that, if we start here, we will end up with a society where the colour of a person's skin does not determine his opportunity or treatment under the law.
That strikes a chord with me personally, as my family experience has been shaped by indirect discrimination. My father was arrested and imprisoned because, as a black student in the American south, he asked for equal treatment with his white peers. He was brought up in a place where the local authority and the Government routinely discriminated institutionally against black people. Recently, the judge who sentenced my father—now 98 years old—wrote to President Clinton saying that his judgment in my father's case had been coloured by race. How often do black people get an opportunity—after waiting 40 years, it has to be said—to see a judge put in writing to the head of state that his judgment was coloured by race? It does not happen very often. Forty years is a long time to wait for a Government to recognise the evils of institutional racism.
In this country, we have been waiting for just under a quarter of a century to strengthen the Race Relations Act 1976 and to achieve the racial equality that is the Act's

central aim. The CRE carried out reviews of the 1976 Act in 1985 and 1992, but its recommendations were ignored by the then Conservative Government. I am pleased to hear how positively the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), spoke about the Bill.
In contrast, the Labour Government were quick to progress positive race relations as soon as we were elected. We did that in the first instance by setting up the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which reported in February 1999. One of the key recommendations was that the
full force of the race relations legislation should apply to all police officers and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers relevant to that legislation.
Following the inquiry, the Home Secretary promised to introduce legislation to bring authorities, including the police, within the scope of the Act. True to his word—as ever—here it is.
Having said how much I welcome the Bill, I wish to point out my concern about enforcement. How will the duty to promote equality be enforced? Could the Minister elaborate? Obviously, the CRE's role will be crucial in terms of guidance to organisations, issuing codes of practice, enforcing compliance and, if necessary, taking authorities to court. As the CRE has pointed out, compliance with the duty to promote equality can be audited by other means; for example, by Ofsted or by Her Majesty's inspectorates of schools and of prisons. What types of audit does the Minister envisage? Will they take place annually?
My other concern is about religious discrimination. I was reminded of this by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). He has had to leave because of an important constituency meeting, but he is naturally concerned about this debate as he is approximately the same age as Stephen Lawrence would be, were he still alive. Under the 1976 Act, Sikhs and Jews are protected, but Muslims are not. Although that has been the result of case law and interpretation rather than a specific provision in the Act, it has given offence to many Muslims and to anyone who cannot accept religious discrimination. I commend the work of Lord Ahmed on the subject, and the extra protection that the Human Rights Act, which took effect on 2 October, offers. Will the Minister tell us whether further legislation on religious discrimination is being considered?
I hope that the Minister will consider the seriousness of the discrimination that British Muslims suffer. I know that he is aware of that, and that it is difficult to untangle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is straying outside the bounds of the Bill. On Third Reading, she must confine her remarks to the content of the Bill.

Ms King: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I am in need. One day, I shall understand all the various rules about what can be said and when it can be said.
The Bill accepts that many strands contribute to the poverty of British Muslims. They are more than four times more likely than white households to live in poverty. More than 60 per cent. fall below the poverty line;


for white families, the figure is 16 per cent. Given all the contributory strands, such as education and employment, will the Minister let me know the Government's thinking on improving that position if it is not covered by the Bill?
No debate on the issue would be complete without a tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence. We have heard many tributes from both sides of the House. It is fitting that the Government have changed the race relations legislation in this country largely as a result of the enormous dedication and commitment that the Lawrences have shown. The Bill is truly a fitting memorial to their son, Stephen.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for not being present for the Minister's opening speech. Travel from Humberside has not been easy today.
I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on behalf of the Conservative party. I listened with interest to the words of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
Stephen Lawrence would have been 26, were he still alive. I congratulate the Government on setting up an inquiry into his death. Richard Stone, one of the assessors, made a comment that influenced me enormously. He said that we should not expect the victims to overcome injustice; those who have greater influence or power, or are more established members of the community, are responsible for putting things right.
I accept that responsibility, and I shall continue to pursue it until the colour of my skin is as important as the colour of my eyes or my hair. People may notice it, but it tells no more about me. I may have no hair left soon, so only the colour of my eyes and that of my skin will remain.
The Bill is important. However, it is more important that people act in the spirit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Bill, which amends it. I welcome the fact that the police accept that the responsibility will fall vicariously on chief officers' shoulders, but that by itself is not enough. Chief officers have senior officers, middle-ranking officers, managers, sergeants and others beneath them. A high proportion of police officers already do their best to treat people fairly and equitably. I believe that, in five years, the police will be able to look back to this year and appreciate the progress that they have made since the Bill was enacted. They can look back now at the progress that they have made in the past five years. Of those two statements, one is true and one will be true.
Much baggage hangs over the police, and not only the Metropolitan police. I was pleased that the inspector of police and the Minister were present at the first meeting of the Black Police Association in Birmingham. At the meeting, it was clear that some senior officers, who had ethnic minority officers with them, treated them as a normal part of the police service. I suspect that others believed that, while they were not undergoing a charade, they were playing a role to show, "We're all equal now." Yet I do not believe that that is true in all parts of all police services in this country. It is true of the majority, and of a growing number of parts of the police service, but it is not generally true.
Let us consider three examples in the Metropolitan police area. I am glad that the police resolved the matter with Detective Inspector David Michael without having to go through a tribunal. That was wise of both sides. In such a case, the relevant officer might have done better in monetary terms by fighting it out, and I have no doubt that the Metropolitan police could have made various comments in an open forum. They wisely came together. That could apply to outstanding cases when the Bill changes the current Act.
Without going into the details or the merits of the different claims and hearings in relation to Sergeant Gurpal Virdi, or those that may arise in relation to Police Constable Manmohan Sandhu, it would be wise for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to look through the outstanding cases and ascertain the number that can be resolved by agreement with the relevant officers or employees.
Perhaps the Minister will say that, had I been present earlier, I would have heard his comments about people outside the police rather than the police dealing with their employees. I accept that. However, the police should be able to draw a line on both outside and inside complaints and, when possible, to resolve them by agreement. I believe that, in the case of former Sergeant Gurpal Virdi, and other cases around the country, it would be possible to reach a satisfactory, honourable agreement, which could sweep away much of the past and allow people to move forward without tying up police time and action.
I believe that I was chosen to represent Worthing, West partly because, when asked what was effectively a race question, I gave the sort of promise that I made at the beginning of my speech. I outlined my determination as a Member of Parliament to try to help to put matters right. When people accuse the Conservative party of being racist, I would say that, in one of the safer Conservative seats—one of the whiter constituencies, if I may put it that way—people want to embrace a modern Britain and the sort of inclusiveness that is shown by an extended story that I shall abbreviate.
In one of Dorothy Sayers' essays, a man whom she calls Budgery is asked, "Are you English?" He replies, "Yes, of course." He is then asked, "Did your ancestors arrive with William the Conqueror?" "Oh no" he replies, "There were Budgerys here before Billy the Conk. But of course, there is some Norman blood in us, and Sir Gilbert brought back a Saracen wife from the third crusade, and so-and-so married a daughter of Pocohontas, and Robert Budgery was black. He came from south America—no one knew who his mother was. The Cornish branch was, of course, Spanish—the Armada, you know." It goes on. The character unrolls Britain's history as he introduces more people. He concludes, "I am of course English, although my mother's father was perhaps Irish and my mother's mother was Scottish." People can accept that sort of inclusiveness with pride.
When people talk about the cricket test, I do not understand why I cannot cheer for the Irish because of my Irish ancestry, just as my wife may cheer the English because her great uncle captained England before the first world war, even though she was born in Scotland. Such mixtures will become increasingly common and need to be made increasingly open.
In my constituency, a young mother told me that she wanted to move to an area where there were more mixed-race children in school because she did not want


her child to feel different. Her husband said that he would prefer to move closer to the police station. He explained that, as he was arrested so often, such a move would save journey time. He is black, and he was stopped three times in two days on suspicion of excess alcohol. The roadside test and the two tests in the police station showed that he was teetotal. One begins to wonder what police sergeants, inspectors and superintendents are doing.
We are talking about setting standards, which no doubt could have been set in the past. I think that we all now treat people in the spirit of the legislation that has been introduced, and I think that the police will too. I commend the Bill and welcome the response of the police to it. I do not underestimate the responsibilities that chief officers of police have taken on for themselves.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, I should say a few words in response to a couple of points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who asked about enforcement of the Bill. The Bill will empower the Commission for Racial Equality to issue a compliance notice to any public authority that fails to fulfil a specific duty imposed by order to promote race equality. If necessary, the CRE could seek a court order to enforce that provision. Audit bodies such as the Audit Commission would also be subject to the duty to promote race equality. They will be able to report on the issue, and that will help to underpin the duty.
I hope shortly to publish the results of research undertaken by Derby university on the extent of religious discrimination and the results of other research into legal issues, which may involve considering possible legislative options. I can take the matter no further than that now.
I join all colleagues in paying tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence. The death of Stephen Lawrence was a tragedy, but it has resulted in changes to the law. I hope that it will make this country a better place for us all, no matter what our race or background.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PETITION

2001 Census (Wales)

Mr. Simon Thomas: I wish to present a petition of the residents of Wales and the other countries in the United Kingdom. It declares that the census forms for 2001 do not allow those who wish to describe themselves as Welsh to do so; nor do they allow for Welsh speakers resident outside Wales to state that they can speak the language. That would render the census a wasteful and pointless exercise. The petition is presented in both Welsh and English and has 9,455 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that these forms be amended to remedy these flaws.
And the petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

2001 Census (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. Simon Thomas: First, let me assure the Minister and everyone else present that, after a marathon nine-hour journey from west Wales, I do not intend to delay the House too long. It is to be welcomed, however, that we have a little time to debate the issue.
I wish to discuss some aspects of the census to be undertaken in Wales next year, and particularly the lack of the Welsh tick box, as it is known, on the census forms. I wish to discuss also some issues that relate to the Welsh language aspect of the census, which are somewhat less important at present.
About two minutes ago I presented a petition on behalf of about 9,500 residents of Wales and of beyond Wales. These are all people who wished to state that they wanted a Welsh tick box on the census form next year. That demand became apparent over the summer months—perhaps the Government thought that it would be a summer flash flood or storm. However, since the emergence of unhappiness in Wales about the format of the census form, the campaign has grown in status as support has grown. It is an issue that many people in Wales are concerned about for the future.
It may be useful if I outline briefly how we got ourselves into this position. I understand that planning for the census began at least four years ago—it probably began much earlier than that. The White Paper that set out some of the Government's proposals for the census was published in March 1999. That was followed by an exercise in Wales at least, in parts of the counties of Ceredigion and Gwynedd in April 1999. That was before I became the Member for Ceredigion and before I had any representative role in the county.
It is important to emphasise that all those events took place before devolution and before the National Assembly for Wales was established. Most of the consultation on the census format was therefore undertaken with the Welsh Office rather than the Welsh Assembly. That might be one reason why some disquiet has arisen within Wales since then.
In 1991, basically the same question was asked throughout England, Scotland and Wales. At that time, many people thought that it was an adequate catch-all to cater for the situation within those countries. We did not have devolution. However, it is worth noting that in 1991, for the first time, the census form included a question about Irish people, and people of Irish descent within Wales. I have no doubt that that was an important step forward for the delivery of services to Irish people, particularly in some English cities. That begged the question of the position of Scottish people, Welsh people, or whatever.
I do not see this matter as an ethnic issue. It is one of national identity. I note that the National Statistician, Len Cook, has recognised the principle. In his statement last Wednesday, when he announced several concessions on this matter, he said:
We are explicitly recognising the diversity of those who identify themselves as Welsh as having other ethnic backgrounds.

That is important. I would like the census to discover how many of those in, for example, the Somali community in Cardiff or the Chinese community in Bangor feel themselves also to be Welsh. That sentiment is part of the emerging Welsh nation and part of the emerging pride, self-determination and self-confidence that is now abroad and burgeoning in Wales with the National Assembly for Wales. Some of that self-confidence has taken a knock with the announcement of the format of the census forms and the lack of ability for people in Wales to tick a simple box to say that they are Welsh. There is no provision either for a box that they can use to state what other background they may have. That has caused some
concern.
In 1991, before devolution and before we started to discuss some of these matters, the term "British" may have seemed to be adequate. However, it is important that we recognise what the term means now. I think that it designates a mostly white ethnic background. Many people in the United Kingdom do not see it as a useful term. The Runnymede Trust report of about two weeks ago raised the question of how "British" is used as a term. What was tolerable 10 years ago may not suit as a catch-all now.
Once the Scottish Parliament decided that in Scotland the first question on the relevant part of the census would be, "Are you Scottish?", that begged the question what would happen in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us—it would take a long history lesson and I am sure that we do not want that and do not have time for it—when Britain became England and Wales only. When was it that we could use the term "British" for the residents of England and Wales? That is de facto what we are doing now throughout the United Kingdom with the census. The residents of Scotland have the ability to describe themselves as Scottish and Irish people, wherever they are in the United Kingdom, have the ability to describe themselves as Irish. All other ethnic groups can use the term that they find most appropriate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. I think that on page 15 of the census form there is a question about place of birth. People can indicate whether it is England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. After that, there is a question about ethnicity—for example, whether one is British, Irish, white, black, African, Asian or whatever. There is also the facility to write Dutch, German, French, Welsh or whatever. The form does not deny anyone. A tick box is not required. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so unsure of his Welshness that he requires a tick box to affirm it.

Mr. Thomas: I am well aware of what the form says: I have it in front of me. I shall deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's argument later, if he will be patience, as I am coming to that issue. However, I shall make a general point. The hon. Gentleman represents the constituency with the highest proportion of people born in Wales and still resident there—more than 95 per cent. I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of people born outside Wales but now resident there. Where people were born is no indication of where they identify with, and it is important to allow people to identify with Wales on the census form whether they were born outside


or inside Wales, and whether they speak Welsh or not. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, but, in a second, I shall address the point about whether the tick box is the best way to do that.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: No, I shall not take any further interventions for the moment, as I want to pursue my argument.
Following the discussions, and especially in the light of what occurred in Scotland, the Office for National Statistics should have realised what was happening and perhaps returned to the National Assembly to see whether it wanted to make a further amendment to the census form.
A cynical definition of "British" is that it is what those in England call people from Scotland and Wales when they win an Olympic gold medal.

Mr. Smith: You seem to be saying that Welshness is a question of identification. The logic of your argument is that, if someone from England comes to live in Wales and identifies with Wales, he may be regarded as Welsh. If that is your argument, it is against the whole history of your party, which has been based on an anti-English sentiment. I can give an example. During the second world war, child evacuees came to Wales. Your party opposed that on the basis that it would be one of the greatest threats—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know the courtesies of the House. He is not referring to the Chair: he is referring to an hon. Member.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) does not half talk rubbish sometimes.

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. Thomas: If that is the quality of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, I do not want to give way to him.
I and many people in Wales cannot accept that, post the decision on the format of the census form, the term "British" can be used for Wales and England only. Many people accept that "British" refers to the people who live in all these islands.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: No, I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way.
It is a moot point whether "British" can refer only to Wales and England given the way in which the census form has been put together. When the form appeared on the website back in July, it sparked a reaction in Wales and a little uproar began which, it would be fair to say, was led initially by the Western Mail. It gave this matter much attention, but pretty soon other parts of the media and Members of the House took it up. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), ran her own petition in her

constituency asking for the census form to be amended. I launched the petition that I presented to the House tonight at the National Eisteddfod in Llanelli. Within a week it had 5,000 signatures, and tonight it had almost 10,000.
I have also received letters of support from more than 100 community councils in Wales, which are the forum of local debate and democracy in Wales. As I was trying to make my way to the House tonight, I heard about the flood problems along the Usk, Wye and Severn valleys— all border areas with England. I was struck by how many of the community councils in those areas had written to say that they would like the census form to have a tick box to record whether people are Welsh or not.
Ten of the county councils in Wales have sent me letters of support. More importantly, the Welsh Local Government Association has said that the census form should be amended, as has the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales and the Welsh Language Board.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: Why not, if the hon. Gentleman would like to have another go.

Mr. Smith: I do not want to have another go. Through Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to ask whether you deny the history that I outlined. Secondly, what is your definition of Welshness?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have a definition of Welshness. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, my definition of Welshness is anyone who lives or works in Wales and who wants to be Welsh. It is as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman's other comments were not worthy of his so-called socialist background.
I shall press on, because I am sure that many hon. Members want to sleep after their hard work getting here today. I ask the Minister to consider the deep hurt that was felt by many in Wales because the Office for National Statistics had seemingly overlooked this aspect of Welsh public life. The Minister will note that I referred to the Welsh Local Government Association, the Commission for Racial Equality and the community councils and local authorities in Wales. They are the ones who will use the census forms, and they will evaluate the information gathered by the census to deliver better public services in Wales.
Usefully, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales made an announcement to the press today that every census form not filled in and returned from Wales would be a cost to Wales of £3,000 per person. That is a useful figure to play with, because, as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury may know, there is serious talk in Wales of a boycott of the census forms, and that still cannot be ruled out, despite the recent concessions.
We have one chance in 10 years to get this right. We want to maximise the number of people who fill in the census forms and get them back so that the national statistics present the best argument for Wales. To get it right we need to design census forms that are easy to fill in and which do not put people off. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), that is why tick boxes were designed. Any statistician will tell


him—he is a scientist, so I suspect he already knows—that it is easier and better to gather information through a simple tick box method. Each time we ask people to write something in, we put up a small barrier. People may note that they could write in Welsh, but may put the form on the kitchen table and the next day forget, make a few ticks and send it off. That is why the announcement of a publicity campaign to encourage people to write in Welsh is an important step forward, and I welcome that concession.
The response from the Office for National Statistics was not as welcome as the hon. Member for Rhondda may think. It first tried to ignore the campaign in Wales, and then tried to belittle it, saying that it was unimportant. It went down the road that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent wishes to go down. It then said that individuals could write "Welsh" in the "other" box if they so wished. Finally, last week, it accepted the point of principle. It accepted that it was wrong and that something needed to be done. So far, that something has been a local campaign in Wales to encourage people to write on the form that they are Welsh, and a second survey within the labour force survey that will be carried out at the same time.
Many people in Wales have told me that they told the Office for National Statistics, at least informally, that that amendment should have been made. I should like to bring a particular case to the Economic Secretary's attention. Following the exercise in Gwynedd, one of the people who was distributing the forms—an Englishman as it happens—told the local managers from the Office for National Statistics that people filling in the forms in Gwynedd had told him that they would like to see a "Welsh" tick box. Somehow that message did not get back. It got back much too late, possibly after the forms had been printed.
I believe that senior staff in Government organisations, such as the Welsh Language Board, may also have mentioned this matter informally, but it is not the board's role to deal with the ethnic question: it is concerned with the provision of the forms in both Welsh and English.
The whole business has added insult to injury in Wales. In response to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I would argue that the tick box, which is designed to achieve complete and accurate reporting, symbolically has equal status with the tick box in Scotland. Many people have a gut reaction to this issue. It is important that we recognise that statistics are not politically neutral: they are politically loaded. The unemployment statistics in the 1980s were massaged by the Conservative Government, and the present Labour Government want to change them. That is a clear sign of how statistics are used for political purposes. If we look at the history of European funding in Wales, it took the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales to get to the bottom of the statistical mess of that funding. In time, that led to the concession on the comprehensive spending review that was announced in the summer.
Without a proper set of statistics that everyone in Wales can use and be confident about, we are in danger of losing the political gain. This debate raged in Wales until last Wednesday when, in advance of my question to the Prime Minister, the subject of which was clear, a £1 million campaign in Wales was announced. There will be

£0.5 million for publicity, which I welcome, as it will be the first time that any Government have encouraged people in Wales to write in to say that they are Welsh. There will also be £0.5 million for an identity survey in Wales, which can be taken as an extension of the labour force survey. Will the Minister confirm that my interpretation of the details is correct?
I understand that the survey will look at 3,000 households and will ask further questions about Welsh identity. I welcome the first concession, but have serious doubts about the second, which involves the problem of which figures we now believe. Some people will write on census forms in Welsh, some will follow the labour force survey and respond that they are Welsh. If they are asked that question, they may respond more easily. However, I am concerned that we will not get accurate figures and that we may get conflicting evidence. As a result, we will not know where we are or be sure about national identity in Wales for the next 10 years.
No doubt the Minister will say that I should welcome £1 million being spent in Wales on those matters. However, that money could have been saved if the census forms had been correct in the first place. We have to shout all the time in Wales for our voice to be heard. Last week, the BSE inquiry showed that the views of the Wales Office were ignored because its civil servants were junior to those in London. It seems as if we always have to shout to make a louder noise before we are heard. When we are heard, as we have been in the past few weeks, it is too late to make a fundamental change.
I shall conclude with one or two small points about the Welsh language aspect of the census. It may be too late this year, but certainly for 10 years' time and the future, will the Minister look again at why the census cannot measure the number of Welsh speakers outside Wales? A simple question could be put on the census form in England, Wales and Scotland.
In the days of digital television, when our Welsh language television channel S4C is no longer terrestrially bound to Wales, but is available in the House of Commons and throughout England, it would be useful if that television channel could know the extent of the market of Welsh speakers or Welsh learners outside Wales. On a practical front, that would be good for advertising and for initiatives such as the Welsh language school in London, which could make its case on the basis of firm statistical information. It would not be hard to add such a question to a census form in England and many people feel that, as the Welsh Language Act 1993 gives equal status to Welsh and English, it is a natural progression to ask people in England, many of whom have moved out of Wales, whether or not they speak Welsh, so that we could tailor and deliver some element of services in England to Welsh speakers, especially, for example, the Welsh language school in London.
May I put some direct questions to the Minister. On what date did the printing of the census forms begin? We are told that the forms cannot be amended as it would cost£2 million to pulp and reprint them which, I agree, would be a waste of paper. We are told that that cannot be done as the forms have already been printed. I have been unable to find out when printing began, but wonder whether it was after concerns were first raised and whether, therefore, a mistake was made.
Will the Minister confirm that the different treatment of Wales and Scotland meets the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998? That question has been asked an awful lot in Wales, so the Minister's confirmation would be useful. Will she outline the concessions announced last week by the Office for National Statistics, especially the meaning of the survey that is going to be carried out? Where and how will the survey be carried out and how will it identify Welsh identity? How will the Office for National Statistics treat the National Assembly for Wales as an independent body?
An alternative form is now available in Wales that can be downloaded from the internet and is exactly the same as the official form. It probably breaks all the copyright rules, but has been slightly amended to include a Welsh tick box. Will the Minister tell me and others in Wales whether that form would be ruled admissible if people were to choose to fill it in and send it back? Does she accept that the results of that question in the census will be flawed, however we look at it, as the question was not asked in quite the right way? What will happen in 2011? What are the Government's plans to ensure that this never happens again? Will the identity survey that will be carried out as part of the labour force survey next year be carried out again in future to measure progress?
About 150 years ago, as many Members will know, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" said "For Wales, see England". There is a danger of the National Office for Statistics saying "For Welsh, see British (other)". Many people in Wales think that that is not good enough, and I would welcome an explanation from the Minister about how the Government will undertake to remedy the situation.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on seeking and securing this important Adjournment debate, which addresses questions that need to be asked about the relationship of nations in the United Kingdom to devolution. He is right to say that Welsh identity is sometimes overlooked both in this country and abroad, and that we are lumped together with the English, the British or whoever.
Our debate is a useful step forward in helping to raise the concept of the identity of Welshness, which needs to be done, given general geo-political forces in this country. The Government did not make a mistake, as they did not draw up the census form. The Office for National Statistics did make a mistake—there are no ifs or buts about that. However, the hon. Gentleman and I differ over the way in which the situation was then tackled.
I sat with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the Committee that dealt with the census, but this issue never came up, as one can see from Hansard and the general forms that were put on the Table in Committee— [Interruption.] I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) is laughing. Perhaps he should serve in Committee, then he would know a little about what we do.
The issue never came before the Committee. The Economic Secretary told us what the census involved, explained its general progress and so on. An issue arose concerning the development of health statistics, to which

I shall return later. I made only a suggestion about the definition of illness in the form and the English-speaking areas of the south Wales valleys, where the hon. Member for Ceredigion and I come from—indeed, we are from the same valley. I said that definitions of illness as being sick, very sick and so on had no validity in the south Wales valleys. The way we measure states of health is that one is bad, or bad in bed, or bad in bed under the doctor. I said that the idea of being sick, very sick or terribly sick had no relevance, which illustrates a difference in vernacular speech and our general attitude.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion is right and his argument about a tick box is irrefutable. A mistake was made, but what do we do about that now? I do not like the way that mistake is being used as a political football.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that I am a scientist. As I understand it, censuses create a framework for the development and administration of future policies, so it is necessary to get matters right. We want to know who is sick, what needs exist, who speaks Welsh, who does not speak Welsh, whether there is a reason for putting more money into the Welsh language or whether we are wasting money by throwing money at it, and whether it is declining in the population.
For those of us who want to save the Welsh language and who have been working for that for most of our political lives in various ways, particularly in local government, it is important to try and measure such things. However, people are running around for political and extreme nationalist reasons—I do not call the hon. Member for Ceredigion an extreme nationalist, but perhaps extreme bonkers—saying, "Don't fill the form in. There is no tick box. It is a flawed census." Even the hon. Gentleman used the expression.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is going off at a tangent. May I make it clear to him and to the House that I have never called for anyone not to till in the census form?

Mr. Rogers: I did not say that; I said that there were extreme people saying so. I would not call the hon. Gentleman extreme. I would not call his party particularly extreme. It was not concerned about the tick box until another fringe party picked it up, forcing the hon. Gentleman and his party into a corner. It realised that somebody had taken its clothes, so it had to respond by developing the campaign.
I understand all that. It is no good being a Welsh nationalist party and suddenly finding that one's nationalist clothes have been taken, but that is the way of the world. The trouble is that the Western Mail, which calls itself the national newspaper of Wales, is backing the campaign in its editorials and its coverage of the matter.
The biggest problem of all is what will happen if people do not fill in the census form. In that case, it will indeed be a flawed census. People may put a line through whatever the hon. Gentleman and his friends object to, but for God's sake let them fill in the rest of the form. To create the idea that there is something wrong with the census is a ghastly mistake which could have profound consequences. I want to find out how many people speak Welsh, how many do not, and where the need is. If people flaw even that one page, it will be counter-productive.
I am very proud of being Welsh, as are other hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. We do not run around waving the dragon all the time, but in our


own way all of us have worked for the benefit of our communities—the people who elect us and whom we represent. However, our patriotism is not based on resentment against another nation. That is the divide between those on the Government Benches, who love Wales and things Welsh, and certain members of the hon. Gentleman's party, who seem to have a resentment against the English—why, I do not know. Perhaps it is a personality disorder of his party, which is unfortunate. Some of my very best friends are members of his party—

Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend should not stretch the case.

Mr. Rogers: I will not stretch it too far. I mentioned that the hon. Gentleman's party had been pushed into a corner. I understand, and perhaps the Minister can confirm, that the chairman of the Welsh Language Board when it was consulted about the document was the former Member of Parliament for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who is now Lord Elis-Thomas and who presides over the Welsh Assembly. The ex-president of the hon. Gentleman's party—the big wheel in the party—was consulted, yet he is not the focus of any attack for not doing his job at that time.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I know that he listened carefully to what I said, but he may have missed the part in which I stated clearly that the Welsh Language Board was consulted as a statutory consultee on the running of the census in both languages and on the question relating to the use of Welsh in Wales. The board did not see it as its job to comment on any other aspects. Nevertheless, I said that members of the board have told me informally that they told the Office for National Statistics that that should have been done.

Mr. Rogers: If that is the case, perhaps we are both right. That is a good way to conduct such a debate, in which we agree on so many points.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned that people should be able to state on the census form that they are Welsh, and that they should know where they come from and where they are going, which is a bigger problem. As I understand it, on the front of the form is a space for the address, so people can state where they live.

Mr. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Rogers: No, I shall not give way again.
For the first time, a census form in Welsh and English will be delivered to every household. That has never happened before. Previously, if one wanted to fill in a form in Welsh, one had to ask for it. That is no longer the case, and I congratulate the Office for National Statistics on that. That is the first point. Let us be generous in our praise, as well as in our accusations.
Secondly, on the form people will fill in the address at which they live, so it will be possible to identify all those who live in Wales. The problem arises in respect of Welsh people who live in England, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That is not covered by the address, but a little

further on in the form, there is a category dealing with place of birth. There are tick boxes for England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and "other". Those are in the bottom left-hand corner on page 15, as I recall. People can indicate, for example, that they are Welsh-born and live in Newcastle or London. That is no problem.
The third question is about ethnicity. I suppose that that is where the tick box causing all the concern might have appeared. I am happy to say that I was born in Wales, I live in Wales, I represent Wales, but I am also British. I see no problem with that, but I accept that if people have a problem with it, they will feel aggrieved about the tick box.

Mr. Smith: Why?

Mr. Rogers: I do not know why. As I said earlier, I do not require a tick box to affirm my Welshness, but people can write that they are Welsh. They can tick "British" or not tick it, tick "Irish" or not tick it, and write in "Welsh" if they want to. There is a space to write it.
In the next column on page 15 there are important questions relating to the Welsh language. From the provision of the forms and throughout the questions on address, place of birth and ethnicity, there is every opportunity for people to affirm their Welshness, but such a fuss is being made about the fact that there is no specific little box in which to do so.
I accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ceredigion that it was a mistake on the part of the Office for National Statistics not to have recognised the very fine sensitivity that exists in some Welsh people. I do not need a census form to affirm that I am Welsh, and I am sorry that the issue is being made such a political football. Next time around, there will be a box. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the Office for National Statistics will not make the same mistake again.

Mr. Paul Flynn: My mother explained to me many years ago about our ethnicity—a difficult problem for one brought up in an Irish Catholic family in Grangetown, Cardiff. We did not speak Welsh—or English very well-and most people spoke with Irish accents. We had friends carrying splendid, traditional Welsh names such as Salvatore, Elgezebal and Marina. My mother explained that we were Welsh just as they were Welsh, but some other people were "real" Welsh and others "proper" Welsh. If my mother were still alive to design the form, she would include three tick boxes. We are all Welsh, just as the splendid Newport rugby team is. One might be surprised at the names of the players, but they feel Welsh when they play Bath, as they recently did, winning by a happy margin.
All of us were Welsh who felt Welsh, no matter our background or ancestry. The real Welsh were those from the valleys of south Wales who did not speak Welsh but had the shadow, the pattern and the music of the Welsh language in their English speech. The idioms and the cadence of the Welsh language was in them. The proper Welsh were those who had the great good fortune to be born speaking Welsh.
I agree with almost all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). This sensitive


issue has stirred emotions, and my hon. Friend was right to say that it was brought to our attention by a party whose leader is domiciled in Newport, West. If the matter is a political football, it is not one that Plaid Cymru kicked off. It may seem minor, but it has touched a raw nerve. People have become concerned that their Welshness, their nationality and their love of Wales were being downgraded, given that Scotland is in the census.
When the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned something that happened 150 years ago, I thought that he was going to talk about the chartist riots in Newport, West, which we are celebrating this week. Some 21 martyrs gave their lives for what they called a noble cause, and people are proud that Welsh women and men, living in terrible conditions of cruelty and unfairness, rose against their oppressors—not, in the main, Welsh—knowing that they were likely to die in the cause. We want to mark that history, nobility and Welshness on the census form.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate and—like several of my hon. Friends—on making a long journey to the House today.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the format and content of the form for the 2001 census in Wales were the product of detailed consultation over several years. The subject of tonight's debate was not raised until a fairly—indeed, very—late moment in that process. Not until the beginning of July was there any indication—despite informal indications referred to by the hon. Gentleman of which I am not aware—from the extensive consultation of any demand for the Welsh tick box as an option for answer to what is, in fact, an ethnicity question. The hon. Gentleman spent some time saying that he felt that this was less a matter of ethnicity than of nationality, and that is one of the several difficulties surrounding questions of this type.
We must be clear— the hon. Gentleman has made it clear in this debate, if not outside the House—that it is wrong to say that anyone who wishes to record himself or herself as Welsh cannot do so. On the contrary, anyone can write "Welsh" against the last category specified in the question.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady is correct, but when the issue was first raised in July, the Office for National Statistics was not clear as to whether it would count everyone who wrote that he or she was Welsh. As a result, a bone of contention has arisen.

Miss Johnson: Matters are now clear: the National Statistician has made it plain that anyone who writes that he or she is Welsh will be counted as such in analyses of the census in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman was fully briefed on the consultation exercise. The census questions in Wales have been subject to comprehensive public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me loiter for a moment over some of the dates contained within the consultation period. Consultation began in June 1998 when the United Kingdom census committee considered a paper including recommendations on the content of the 2001 census.

The draft White Paper was published on 18 December 1998, but work was done before that. On 30 March 1999, the Welsh census user network group met, and that meeting was attended by representatives of the ONS, 22 Welsh local authorities, health authorities, national park authorities and other public sector services such as the police. The White Paper proposals were discussed, but issues were raised only in relation to the religion and income questions.
Several public roadshows were held. At a meeting in Cardiff, 46 representatives of the census user community included those from the councils of Caerphilly, Carmarthen, City of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot. The issue of ethnic group categories was not raised. On 22 April, a public roadshow meeting held at Mold was attended by a further 34 representatives, including those from Gwynedd council. On 25 April, a census rehearsal was held at 15,000 households. The hon. Gentleman smiles, having realised that that took place not just in Gwynedd but in Ceredigion. Contrary to what he said, the ONS was not made aware of any evidence of concern about the wording relating to ethnic group. If the matter was contentious in any way, it was not raised as a result of the extensive census rehearsal. We are not, I know, concerned only with the hon. Gentleman's constituency tonight, but about 25 per cent. of the total households there were involved in that exercise.
A further meeting was held last July with the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the output requirements. Again, the question was not raised. On 26 July 1999, there were discussions between several parties, including the Welsh Language Board, which was also involved in discussions held in January 2000. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not yet a Member of Parliament at that point, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, a notable member of the hon. Gentleman's party was then president of the Welsh Language Board, and, although his concentration may well have been focused on the Welsh language, he was in an ideal position to make any representations had this been a burning topic. So far as I am aware, no such representations were made.
The hon. Gentleman was elected to the House in February 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda made clear, census regulations were laid before Parliament several months later—in June. The hon. Member for Ceredigion observed that, because people did not shout about these matters from Wales, the situation did not reflect what might be a sensitive issue for some there. I do not think that it would be regarded as such by all on the same basis; but let us assume that some Welsh representatives might well have wanted to shout about it—including, I have to say, the hon. Gentleman, who did not shout on 6 June when the census regulations were laid before the House.

Mr. Rogers: In fairness to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and as a member of the Committee involved, let me say that two members of that Committee never saw the census form. We never saw that there was no tick box. We looked carefully at the Hansard,


and at the documents submitted to the Committee. However, I support everything that the Minister has said so far.

Miss Johnson: I accept that that may well be so, although someone was clearly concerned about the need to find out what was there.
We must, I think, conclude that regular liaison meetings were indeed held with the Welsh Language Board, and that the statistical directorate of the National Assembly has been involved at all stages of the planning process. There was extensive local authority engagement with the Welsh census user network, which was consulted a number of times before the questions were finalised. As I have said, there were rehearsals.

Mr. Thomas: I appreciate what the Minister has said about the census consultee group, on which local authorities were represented, but why have local authorities suddenly woken up to the issue since then—so much so that their own body, the Welsh Local Government Association, has said that it wants the census forms to be changed? We should not accept, "Something went wrong in the consultation process."

Miss Johnson: I really cannot comment. We have undertaken an extensive consultation, and the fact is that the issue was not raised.
Options for answering the ethnicity question include a write-in box in which people can identify themselves as Welsh if they wish to do so. As the National Statistician announced last week, the Office for National Statistics has undertaken to organise a significant advertising campaign to publicise that option.
The National Statistician also announced a new study of Welsh identity. That brings me to the hon. Gentleman's point about the separate survey now being planned for 2001—the Welsh labour force survey. A survey is already in progress, but will be expanded following the Assembly's request for a "booster." The aim is to obtain additional data on Welsh identity, and the results will be used to refine and expand information gathered in the census from the write-in option.
Let me reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion. The labour force survey is a large and well-established Government survey, providing key information on labour market and related topics. The expanded and enhanced version that will be carried out at about the time of the census is designed to provide additional estimates of aggregate labour market statistics for unitary authorities in Wales.
The extra information will consist of questions about Welsh identity and a range of other variables, and will be brought together with the census information at local level. The result will be an unprecedented amount of detail about Welsh identity in every part of Wales, and the National Statistician has undertaken to publish a special report based on the information. The Office for National Statistics responded properly to issues that emerged from the census rehearsal.
There was a demand for the census form to be made available in both Welsh and English to people throughout Wales. As a result, the form will for the first time be

available in both languages to every household in Wales. It will be the biggest-ever print run of an official document in Welsh. There was a demand for a question asking respondents whether they could understand, speak, read or write the Welsh language. Such a question has been included in the census form.
Other measures have been taken to ensure the success of the census in Wales. A question on the country of birth will provide a tick box enabling people to indicate that they were born in Wales; my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned that issue. For the first time, a census manager has been appointed specifically for Wales, and is a Welsh speaker. Efforts are being made to recruit bilingual field staff in Welsh-speaking areas, and the public inquiry line will offer full support in the Welsh language. We have tried to accommodate the points made during the extensive consultation period and reflect them in a census that will, in many respects, be well-tailored to Wales.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked about the parliamentary process. The census is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the respective Registrars-General are responsible for holding the census. The Registrar-General for England and Wales, who wears another hat as the National Statistician, has responsibility for the census in those countries. The census is governed by the Census Act 1920, which requires draft Orders in Council to be laid before both Houses. Those orders were approved in the Commons on 2 February, and in the Lords on 16 February, after which the census regulations were laid. The lead time is long and the period from the start of the parliamentary process to the holding of the census also needs to be long because of the scale of the logistical exercise to be undertaken.
The time scales allow the Registrar-General to recruit census field staff, prescribe the detailed arrangements for the delivery and collection of forms and set out the actual questions to be asked on facsimile copies of the census forms. The regulations were laid before both Houses on 6 June, and came into force on 27 June. Both those statutory instruments could have been objected to by Members of Parliament or peers at any time, but such objections did not arise.
In Scotland, a parallel process was conducted through the Scottish Parliament. The census regulations in Scotland were made on 15 June—a couple of weeks before ours came into force—and the regulations were laid before the Scottish Parliament the following day. The decision to include a "Scottish" category in the census in Scotland was taken by the Scottish Executive. The demand for a Welsh tick box had still not arisen.
The census is the biggest peacetime civilian operation affecting the whole population. Years of planning are required. The process includes not only the forms, but the preparation of the systems for their scanning, processing and analysis; in addition, there are logistical issues and contracts for the haulage company to deliver millions of forms. A lengthy time scale is required for the whole process.
To make a considered change to the census form would require testing and an assessment of the effect on the choices open to all the major communities. The addition of a Welsh tick box now would require additional legislation and parliamentary time, and technical and logistical operations that have been in train for months


could not be changed now without considerable disruption and expense. We have now entered the phase where even minor changes in any aspect could disrupt the process and jeopardise the census as a whole—something I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion does not want.
The National Statistician has promised that the possibility of a Welsh tick box will be considered during the consultation process for any future census. In the meantime, I urge the people of Wales to complete their census forms in April 2001—if they wish, using the write-in option to register their Welsh identity. The census informs £3 billion of public spending in Wales each year and I do not believe the people of Wales will want to see any part of that substantial sum put at risk. Those who

fail to participate in the census increase the possibility that Welsh people will lose out on resource allocation and, consequently, on the provision of community services. It is in the interests of all the people of Wales to fill in their census forms and to ensure that Wales counts.
For those concerned about the lack of a tick box, the message is a simple one: "Tell us that you're Welsh and we'll count you as Welsh." As I am sure the House agrees, that is the best course of action for the people of Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eight o'clock.